T 

MEPDE 

K 1359 
7th. fl2 
4 

opy 2 


GUMENTS AND HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

ELECTIONS COMMITTEE No. 3 


IN THE CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF 

C. B. KENNAMER v. L. B. RAINEY 

SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 
FIRST SESSION 



62061 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1921 


ELECTIONS COMMITTEE NO. 3. 


CASSIUS C. DOWELL, Chairman, Iowa. 

FRANK D. SCOTT, Michigan. ZEBULON WEAVER, North Carolina. 

CARL R. CHINDBLOM, Illinois. JOHN C. BOX, Texas. 

CLARENCE D. COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania. W. TURNER LOGAN, South Carolina. 
MINOR G. NORTON, Ohio. 

WARREN I. LEE, New York. 

2 


* 


LibRAKY OF CONGRESS 

RECEIVED 

AUG 27 1924 


DOCUMENTS DIVISION j 





^CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF KENNAMER v. RAINEY. 


Committee on Elections No. 3, 

House of Representatives. 
Washington, Thursday, July 28, 1921. 

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. Cassius C. Dowell (chairman) 
Presiding. A quorum was present. 

The ( hairman. We will proceed for one hour. Judge Street, you may 
proceed. 

ARGUMENT OF MR. O. D. STREET ON BEHALF OF CONTESTANT. 

Mr. Street. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, before proceed¬ 
ing with the argument I desire to offer three pieces of documentary evidence. 
One is a certified transcript of the result of this election by counties, certified 
to by the secretary of state. Another is a certified transcript from the record 
°f the result in l)e Kalb County, showing the vote in this election by precincts. 
The transcript from the office of the secretary of state only shows it by coun¬ 
ties. The third is a similar transcript of the result of this election’ in St. 
Clair County, showing the vote by precincts. 

Mr. Box. Is that included in the original record or is this an additional 
'Offer ? 

Mr. Street. One of these is included in the record; a c*op\ of the transcript 
from the secretary of state’s office is included in the record, hut I thought per¬ 
haps the committee might prefer to have this orig'nal certificate before you. 
The results of this election by precincts in De Kalb and St. Clair Counties by 
some oversight did not get into the printed record. 

The Chairman. Were those in the original record? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; these transcripts seem not to have gotten in the tran¬ 
script of testimony as originally taken. 

The Chairman. Why were they not put in the record? 

Mr. Street. I do not know. I was not present when the testimony was 
taken, either in De Kalb County or St. Clair County, and do not know how 
it happened that they failed to get in the record the result of the election by 
precincts. 

Mr. Chindblom. As I understand you, that first document- 

Mr. Street. Is printed in the record. 

Mr. Chindblom. And you are merely furnishing now the actual document 
itself? 

Mr. Street. This is the secretary of state’s certificate, a copy of which 
appears in the record. 

Mr. Weaver. Is that certified copy which you offer now already in the 
record ? 

Mr. Street. It is. 

Mr. Weaver. As a certified copy, or just the result in some form or other? 

Mr. Street. Well, it is here as a certified copy; it is printed in the record. 
The certified copy is printed at length in the record. However, I have the 
original, and if the committee desires it, we offer it. I do not know that that is 
very material. This, I think, is material, because, as you will see by reference 
to my brief, there are certain conclusions there drawn from the vote cast in 
the several precincts. Now, I have examined some of the precedents on con¬ 
tested-election cases, and I find it is pretty well settled that documentary 
evidence that does not involve the taking of any oral testimony may be sub¬ 
mitted at the hearing. 

Mr. Weaver. I think that is a matter for the committee to determine, Mr. 
Street. Is not that your understanding? 

The Chairman. I have not examined the question. 


3 




4 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Mr. Weaver. My suggestion would be this, to let the contestant offer that, 
subject to objection to be made by counsel for the contestee when he comes here. 

Mr. Rainey. We have no objection to that. 

Mr. Street. That is entirely satisfactory, because you will find that the pre¬ 
cedents say that documentary evidence may be offered at the hearing when it 
does not involve the taking of oral testimony. 

Mr. Chindblom. Do you cite those precedents in your brief? 

Mr. Street. They are cited in the brief; yes, sir. 

Mr. Chindblom. Can you give us the page? 

Mr. Street. You will find it on page 54 of the brief, and it cites page 706 of 
Rowell’s Historical Digest. 

Now, if the committee is ready for me to proceed with the argument, I will 
do so. 

The Chairman. All right; proceed. 

Mr. Street. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this contest is, as you see, from 
the seventh Alabama district. The result there was very close. You will find, 
by referring to page 2 of our brief, that the vote received on the face of the 
returns was, for Mr. Rainey 23,709, and for Mr. Kennamer, the contestant, 
22,970, making an apparent majority for Mr. Rainey of 739 out of a total vote 
of 47,000. 

We challenge this record on two or three grounds, but the main ground, the 
chief ground, on which this contest is predicated, is what we claim was a par¬ 
tisan, an unfair, and a criminal administration of the registration law that 
was passed just before this election, necessitated by the enfranchisement of the 
women. 

We charge in this contest, and we think the testimony in this record shows, 
that there was a conspiracy that involved not only the managers of the cam¬ 
paign on behalf of Mr. Rai«ey, the Democratic nominee, but involved some of 
the State officials, and we think this record proves that it involves the legis¬ 
lature of the State; that the time was deliberately shortened, the allowance 
of the time for the registration of the women, and that the combined action 
of the legislature and the combined action of the governor in unnecessarily de¬ 
laying and calling the legislature in session, in view of the great emergency 
that was before our State, the delay of the legislature in passing a registration 
law; then the delay that might have been avoided, we think, by the exercise of 
the diligence required under the circumstances by the governor in appointing 
the registrars, and the further delay on account of the registrars having to 
make their preparations, of course, to register the voters constituted a con¬ 
spiracy. 

We do not criticize the registrars so much for tjiis delay, because the regis¬ 
trars really were not given sufficient time in which to register the women. 
Our complaint against them is different, as I will show you before I am through. 

There was the strongest motive possible for making the time short for allow¬ 
ance of the registration of the women. The enfranchisement of the women 
cast into our electorate a mass of voters as large as those already existing in 
our State, and perhaps larger; because there were many men disfranchised by 
the operation of our qualifications—poll-tax qualifications and other restric¬ 
tions thrown around our suffrage—there were a lot of men disfranchised and 
could not register. None of these women had been subject to these qualifica¬ 
tions up to that time; they were all qualified to register if given an opportunity. 
So that the probabilities are there was a larger body of electors suddenly cast 
into our body politic by the enfranchisement of the women than already ex¬ 
isted. It afforded an unusual and rather extraordinary opportunity, to anyone 
who would desire, to take advantage of a situation of that kind, in a c’ose race, 
to avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded to affect this result by the 
manipulation of the registration of the women’s vote, and that is what we want 
to try to show this committee was done. 

Now, the governor, after the proclamation of enfranchisement of the women 
was issued, delayed for two weeks; that is to say. while he issued his call 
promptly for the assembling of the legislature, in view of the enormous number 
of women thus precipitated into our body politic, we think that this call should 
have convened the legislature much quicker than was done. The time allowed 
for getting the legislature of Alabama together to meet that emergency was 
greater than is oftentimes allowed for the assembling of Congress in extraordi¬ 
nary session, so I am reliably informed, while I have not looked it up myself. 
Fourteen days were given for the meeting of the legislature of the State of 
Alabama, when they could have been gotten together in two days. There is 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


5 


not a portion of our State from which a member of the legislature could not 
have reached Montgomery in two days’ time. And in view of that fact, we 
think the very earliest possible moment should have been used to call the legis¬ 
lature together. 

They assembled when there was no popular demand for any legislation on 
an> other subject than that of affording the women an opportunity to register. 
I he governor himself, as you will see printed in this record, says that this was 
the only occasion of urgent importance that called this legislature together; 
and yet, after having met on the 14tli day of September for this purpose, and 
this purpose alone, I may say, they passed some other legislation after they got 
together and this law for the registration of the women was the very last law 
that was enacted by that legislature. It was not enacted until the very day 
on which that legislature adjourned, and there was no demand from any quar¬ 
ter, of course, but for the enactment of a law of that sort, as you will find set 
forth in the brief of the contestee. You will find it a 1 so there stated that this 
was an important piece of legislation; that it not only provided for that emer¬ 
gency but was a general registration law. While that is true, yet you will 
find that the registration law, with the exception of the three or four sec¬ 
tions, is virtually a copy of the registration law that already existed in our 
State—practically a copy of the law that this special law says was repealed. 
The act of 1915 was repealed by it, and you will find that this law is practically 
a copy of that law. There was no reason on earth, we submit, why that, law 
should not have been passed in a much shorter time than between the 14th of 
September and the 2d of October—the very last day of that special session of 
the legislature. 

Now, was it to the advantage of our Democratic friends, who are excellent 
gentlemen; many of them are my best friends—for my friend Rainey there I 
have nothing but the kindest feelings—in our social relations down there and 
in business we have no troubles and difficulties, and yet I but speak what every¬ 
body knows, that when it comes to elections and politics our Democratic friends 
never fail to take advantage in the Southern States of anything that turns up 
that may be utilized to their advantage and to the disadvantage of their adver¬ 
saries, whether it be fair or not. Now, was it to the advantage of the Demo¬ 
cratic Party, with some, perhaps, 15,000 to 20,000 new voters to be registered— 
was it to their advantage to make this time short; was this law so framed as 
to give the Democratic Party all of the advantages, and was it then subse¬ 
quently manipulated by these registrars in a way to give the Democratic Party 
the advantage under this registration law? 

I want to take a little time to show you that the strongest motive possible was 
offered to them, with all the machinery of the State in their hands, with the 
power to do it, with the knowledge on the'r part that certain provisions would 
give them a tremendous advantage—I want to show this committee that fact; 
that there was the strongest possible motive. 

Where was the Democratic strength—where is the Democratic strength in 
the seventh Alabama district? It is in the towns and cities. That is true of 
practically every district in the South. Now, what was the result of the manner 
in which the provisions of that law were framed and the manner in which it 
was manipulated? 

I have gone through this record carefully and I have compiled what was done, 
and there was allowed to the towns—and bear in mind further Mr. Rainey car¬ 
ried the towns and received a net majority of 3,747, and Mr. Kennamer carried 
the rural districts by a net majority of 3,008. Here is what was done: There 
was given to the 29 towns and cities in the seventh district and 29 voting places 
in the seventh district—there was given 63 days 8^ hours for registration, while 
in the 160 voting places in the rural district there was given 160 hours—16 days 
of 10 hours each—given to 160 voting places in the rural precincts of that dis¬ 
trict, while the 29 towns and cities that gave Mr. Rainey a majority of 3,747 
were given 63 days 8| hours. 

Now, the registrars were not altogether responsible for that themselves. This 
law, I will admit, had been framed in a way that gave the towns and cities a 
tremendous advantage in the registration; but what the legislature itself had 
not done by the express provisions of the law these registrars, every one of 
whom was a Democrat—not a s'ngle, solitary Republican appointed as a regis¬ 
trar in any county in that distr’ct; not even one in the State of Alabama—what 
the legislature itself had not done along this line, as I will show you before I 
am through, these registrars supplemented by their work. The act itself is a 


6 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


partisan one, and these registrars administered this law so as to give these 
towns and cities 63 days 84 hours. 

Mr. Chindblom. How many hours each day in those 63 days? 

Mr. Street. They counted 10 hours to the day, and 63 days 84 hours were 
given to the towns and cities and 16 days, or 160 hours, were given to the rural 
district. 

Mr. Norton. What is tlie population of the towns and cities as compared to 
the rural district? 

Mr. Street. The vote of the towns and cities—these 29 towns and cities 
was 14,117; the vote of the rural districts was 32,562,. In other words, the 
rural districts outvoted the towns and cit es by more than 2 to 1, and yet 
they were given a mere pittance of t ine in which to register their voters, while 
the towns and cities, in which was the whole Democratic structure, was given 
ample opportunity for the registration of their women. 

Mr. Weaver. Would you mind staling substantially just what the registra¬ 
tion law is; I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. Street). Certainly; I know you are not familiar with that. The law 
provides this, that the reg straws might fix such t mes and places for registra¬ 
tion as they saw tit, with this proviso, that the last week—that is, beginning 
on Tuesday of one week and ending on Tuesday of the follow.ng week, eight 
days—they must s t in the county-seat town. 

Mr. Weaver. Let me ask you there: The last eight days they were required 
to sit in the county-seat town? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Mr. Weaver. Then, could any voter or anyone who wished to register from 
any precinct in the county apply in those eight days at the county-seat town? 

Mr. Street. They could; yes, sir. And I want to show you how that was 
abused; before I get through I want to show you one of t he most outrageous 
abuses of that right that was ever perpetrated anywhere on earth. 

Mr. Weaver. The thing I wanted to get at is this: l r ou say they only 
gave so many hours to the country precincts; that is, they actually-went into 
these different outlying precincts for all those hours? 

Mr. Street. That is right. 

Mr. Weaver. I am not sure about this, but is it not true that in figuring the 
number of hours given to the county seats or the town", as you put it, where 
you say the Democratic strength was, that you count in the eight days the 
board was required by law to sit for the registration of voters from the entire 
county ? 

Mr. Street. I do. 

Mr. Weaver. While they sat there anybody from any part of the county 
could have registered? 

Mr. Street. That is correct; that is the law. And yet I do say this: That 
the inevitable effect of that was where the Democratic strength lies in these 
county-seat towns and the Republican strength lies in the rural district, by 
requiring them to give a whole week in the county-seat towns gives a tre¬ 
mendous advantage to the Democratic women to register. Understand me, I 
do not say that the registrars in observing that provision' of that law com¬ 
muted any irregular or any illegal act. Not at all; I do not say that: but I 
simply point to that to show that the combined result of the legislation and 
the manner in which the registrars administered this law did give this advan¬ 
tage to those communities wherein 1 es the Democratc strength. 

Mr. Chindblom. Prior to the enactment of this special law it was the prac¬ 
tice and was there a provision of the law to give those hours for the registra¬ 
tion of the men? 

Mr. Street. Oh, no. The general law requires them to visit every precinct 
every two years. We sire only allowed to register there once hi two years; 
once in two years the registrars are required to visit each precinct and to give 
the necessary length of time to each precinct. 

Mr. Chindblom. So that you have a general registration once every two 
years? 

Mr. Street. Yes, s'r. 

Mr. Chindblom. What time is given to them in that general registration? 

Mr. Street. As long as is necessary, but not exceeding, as my recollection 
is, 50 days in any county, except in counties having over 150,000 population, 
where they may use 55 days. 

Mr. Box. That law is still in force? 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


7 


Mr. Street. That law is still in force and will cover the next general regis¬ 
tration that will take place. 

The Chairman. But when once registered, the voter is entitled to remain on 
the registration list? 

Mr. Street. He is registered forever, unless he changes his residence; that is 
correct. 

The Chairman. So that the only ones registered are those not appearing upon 
the registration list prior to that time under the general law? 

Mr. Street. The only ones that registered in this last registration, the one I 
am talking about now, were those who had not previously been registered under 
the general law. 

The Chairman. So that under the special law the only ones registered were 
those who did not appear upon the general registration list? 

Mr. Street. That is correct, unless there had been a change of residence. 
In case there had been a change of residence from one county to another, then 
they were entitled to register under that special law, provided that change of 
residence was not too far back. 

Mr. Chindblom. Do you ever have an entirely new registration? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; we have not had an entirely new registration in 20 
years. 

Now, to show you further the tremendous advantage that was given I have 
commented here upon the act itself. Now, let us see how the registrars carried 
that out. Bear in mind every one of those registrars was a Democrat; not 
one of them was a Republican. This testimony shows most of them were ap¬ 
pointed upon the recommendation of the chairman of the Democrats county 
committee, and the evidence shows that they were the most partisan Democrats 
that could be found and that is the reason they were appointed—they were 
appointed because of their well-known partisanship. 

Mr. Box. Did any witness testify to that? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chindblom. Were any clerks or any other persons employed in the regis¬ 
tration'besides the registrars? 

Mr. Street. None at all. They had a right to call in clerks to do the mere 
clerical work if it was found necessary. 

Mr. Chindblom. Does not the law provide for any registration board of any 
kind; is it only one person who has charge? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; it provides for a board of three. 

Mr. Norton. And they can be of the same party? 

Mr. Street. Our Democratic laws in the South do not usually require repre¬ 
sentation to be given to the adverse party. That is an advantage they have 
always taken when the law allowed it, and, being in charge of the legislature, 
they have not been very generous in according to us Republicans representation. 

Mr. Norton. Naturally. 

Mr. Street. Now, I submit this: It is not a lucrative office, this position of 
the registrar. Why was it that all of these men were appointed from the same 
political party? Could it possibly have been for any other purpose except to 
make a partisan use of it? There can not be any doubt but what they were 
appointed for that purpose. And did they fulfill the expectation? According 
to the testimony in this case, they fulfilled the expectations that were enter¬ 
tained of them. 

Take, for instance, Blount County, one of the counties in this district, and I 
submit a table there on page 11 of their registration appointments and I com¬ 
ment on it briefly at the bottom of that page. 

“A study of these figures discloses that the precincts chosen by the regis¬ 
trars to be visited ”— 

That is, where the registrars were given a discretion— 

“A study of these figures discloses that the precincts chosen by the regis¬ 
trars to be visited by them gave Rainey 889 majority, and the precincts which 
they chose not to visit gave Kennamer 730 majority. It is thus plain that the 
Republican sections of the county were discriminated against. The strongly 
Republican portion of the county east of Oneonta, consisting of Dailey’s, Hard¬ 
wick, and Blount Highlands beats (record, p. 190), having an area of 11 by 
30 miles ”—11 miles wide and 30 miles long—“ was not given a single regis¬ 
tration appointment (record p. 189). Despite this handicap, Kennamer car¬ 
ried it by 377 majority. 

“A study of the above table further shows that the Democratic beats were 
given over 10 days of 9 hours each, while the Republican beats were given only 
14^ hours, all told.” 


8 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Now, that same thing is true of practically every county of the district. 
For instance, let us take Cherokee County, which gave Mr. Kennamer a ma¬ 
jority of some 400 or 500, and you will find on page 13 a table showing the 
registration appointments with the result. “A study of the foregoing tables 
show that in Cherokee County not a single registration appointment was made 
in a Republican beat”—not one. “The evidence shows that those that were 
chosen in this election had previously been pronouncedly Democratic. Mr. 
J. F. Brown, the Democratic circuit clerk of Cherokee County,” whom we 
examined, and, by the way, I want to say to the committee that most of the 
testimony we took in this case came from Democratic witnesses. We put 
their own men on the stand and proved our contentions by them. And I 
want to say another thing, that notwithstanding the attack we make here in 
this testimony upon the registrars, they did not dare to put four of their regis¬ 
trars upon the stand. The testimony that we offered, may it please the com¬ 
mittee, comes here practically undenied; in fact, it is not denied in the brief 
of the contestee. It could not be denied. They make the lame excuse that 
these things occur in every election. Then I say in the brief: “ Mr. J. F. 
Brown, the Democratic circuit clerk of Cherokee County, testified that the 
registrars did not visit a single known Republican beat for the purpose of 
registering (record p. 118). The beats visited by the registrars gave Rainey 
a majority of 5(01, which is 61 more than his majority in the county as a 
whole.” In other words, Kennamer carried the precincts which the registrars 
did not visit by a net majority of 61. 

Let us go to Cullman County, and the same thing is said in this brief for 
the contestee that in Cullman County most of their appointments were in the 
Republican beats. That is true, because there were so few Democratic beats 
in that county that they did not have enough to go around. They did visit 
every Democratic beat in Cullman County and two, and they were small beats, 
gave a small majority for Mr. Rainey. Now, we say this in our brief- 

Mr. Chindblom. “Beat” is a new term to me. What is a “beat”? 

Mr. Street. A precinct. You perhaps know it as a precinct. 

Mr. Chindblom. I suspected it was that, but I wanted the record to show it. 

Mr. Street. That is right; we call them beats. 

Mr. Chindblom. We associate that term with the policeman on the corner 
in our town. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Street. Yes. On page 16 we say this: 

“ This list of appointments, although the fairest in any county in the district, 
except St. Clair, included every Democratic beat in the county but two, which 
gave a net majority to Rainey of 44.” 

They were pretty strictly Republican and it is not a surprise they were 
overlooked. 

“ * * * p omitted e'ght Republican beats which gave Kennamer a net 

majority of 455.” 

That is Cullman County, and they boast in their brief about the fairness 
displayed by them in Cullman County. 

Dekalb County was the rottenest county in the district ; yet we carried it by 
more than 800 net majority. I want the committee to read carefully the 
testimony of the witnesses in Dekalb County. You will find here a table on 
page 17 of the appointments made in Dekalb County. And they did this: 
They visited every Democratic beat, these registrars, and gave notice of the 
visit to every Democrat in that county but two .and those two—one of them 
gave a majority of 81 to Mr. Rainey and the other one gave a majority of 
something like 40 or 50. 

I will come back to Dekalb County on another feature in a moment. 

Now, to come to Etowah County. I will say for Mr. Rainey’s county that in 
some respects there was not as flagrant abuse of this law as in some of the 
other counties, and yet these are facts. At the election Mr. Rainey carried 
17 beats and Kennamer 17 in the county. The registrars sat in 8 of the Rainey 
beats and in only 3 of the Kennamer beats. These 8 Rainey beats gave him 
a majority of 2,990; the 3 Kennamer beats gave him only 142 majority. 
Rainey’s net majority in the precincts where the reg strars sat was 2,793, 
nearly four times his majority in the district. It is perfectly plain from these 
figures that the Republican sections of the county were grossly discriminated 
against in the registration. 

Marshall County. They undertook to visit every precinct in the county, 
and I want to call the committee’s attention to this. I said they whittled away 
the time they should have been devoting to the registering of these womep 



KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


9 


until there was practically nothing left, so that in Blount County it happened- 
there was allowed only six days in wliich to cover 34 country precincts; in 
Cherokee County, one day to cover 31 precincts. They only made one ap¬ 
pointment and advertised one appointment in Cherokee County, which Mr. 
Rainey carried by nearly 500 in the rural districts. In Cullman County they 
had 20 and 24 precincts; in Dekalb, 29 and 25 precincts. In Etowah County 
they did not advertise. The law requires these appointments to be advertised 
by posting notice at the courthouse doors and at other public places in the 
county. There is not a scintilla of testimony in this record that that notice 
was given in any county in the district; not a particle. The lame effort was 
made to give notice through the newspapers, but the fact is that before- 

Mr. Norton. Does the evidence show that it was not given? 

Mr. Street. I was just going to tell you how that was given. Their first 
appointments were in the rural districts. They made a lame attempt to give 
notice in the newspapers. These newspapers appeared from one to three days 
after registration in the country had begun; from one to three days after 
reg stration in the country had begun these newspaper not'ces occurred. 

Mr. Box. Do you have papers published daily in that locality? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; weekly. 

Mr. Box. These were weeklies only? 

Mr. Street. Only in Etowah County is there a daily, and I will allude to that 
in a minute. They have two dailies in Etowah County, and they publish two 
entirely different lists in those two daily papers in the County of Etowah, 
Mr. Rainey’s county, as to where the registrars would be at certain times and 
places—both published on the same day—so that a man in Etowah County 
could not tell any more where the registrations were going to take place than 
a man here in Washington. 

Mr. Norton. Wasn’t that corrected? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; it was never corrected in any newspaper nor in any 
circular, as far as I was able to find out, and I had every circular issued in 
Etowah County. 

Mr. Chindblom. How were those registrars appointed? 

Mr. Street. By the governor. 

Mr. Chindblom. And how many to each county? 

Mr. Street. Three. 

Mr. Norton. That is the regular way? 

Mr. Street. That is the regular way. 

Mr. Chindblom. So that the same three men would have to travel all 
through the county to the various precincts? 

Mr. Street. And in a body. The law does not allow them to go singly. You 
will find there it requires they shall go in a body and it requires a quorum for 
them to do any business at all, so that two of them must be together to do 
anything. 

Mr. Chindblom. Does the law require, also, that they shall go into all the 
precincts? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; I mean in this special registration it left that to their 
discretion as to where they should go; and, as I have pointed out, they chose 
to go to the Democratic strongholds. 

Take my county, Marshall County: They undertook the impossible thing 
of visiting every precinct in our county within the five or six-days allowed 
them, and what was the result. They just went through like a streak of 
greased lightning, so to speak. Nobody knew when they were coming nor 
when they were going, and they would have 10 or 15 minutes in a place when 
they got there. 

Mr. Chindblom. Did they burn oil? I Laughter.] 

Mr. Street. Well, they burned gas. They managed to get along, and they 
would come and he gone in many instances before the people knew anything 
about it—in most all cases. For instance, I call attent on to the way it was 
handled in that county. But before I begin that I want to call attention to 
the nearest the Republicans had of getting any information as to when this 
registration was going to beg n or where it was going to be held. Mr. Ken- 
namer, Ir'mself, the contestant, went to one of the registrars in our county 
and tried to get this information, and let me read you what Mr. Kennamer testi¬ 
fied. And it is not denied; in fact, it is corroborated by Mr. Roberts, the 
Democratic registrar. 

Mr. Chindblom. On what page of the record? 

Mr. Street. Page 146. He was asked this question : 


10 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


“ Q. State whether or not you were diligent in your efforts to keep up with 
the progress of the campaign in all of its aspects?—A. Yes. 

“ Q. D.d you make dil gent inquiry to ascertain when registration would 
begin and where it would be held?—A. I did. 

“ Q. Did you apply in person to any member or members of the board of 
registrars for this information?—A. My recollection is the registrars were 
appointed on Wednesday or Thursday before they commenced their registra¬ 
tion the following Monday; as soon as I learned who they were, which was on 
Tuesday, I think, I commenced inquiring from George Roberts, one of the 
registrars, to find out when they would hold their first meeting and make up 
their it.nerary of the county. Mr. Roberts told me that just so soon as he 
could get the informat'on himself he would give it to me.” 

And I want to say that, in my judgment, if all of these registrars had been 
the kind of men Mr. Roberts is, we would not and could not have been here 
to-day with this complaint we make, because we put him upon the stand our¬ 
selves and examined him as our witness in this case, and I would be glad to 
have the committee read his testimony and see his version as to how it was 
handled. 

“ * * * I made this inquiry as much as two times Thursday, two Or three 

times Friday, and a number of times Saturday. On Saturday our circuit 
court was in session for Marshall County, at Guntersville; some case was being 
tried that attracted a large crowd of people from over the county. "While the 
trial was in progress in the court room I noticed two of the registrars, Mr. 
J. O. Johnson and Mr. Scruggs, frequently entering one of the witness rooms 
adjoining the court room. I looked in that room without entering and saw 
these two registrars in conference with Mr. ,T. B. Stearnes, chairman of the 
Democratic executive committee of Marshall County ”— 

And the testimony shows that those two made up that caucus and the list 
was made up between those two registrars, because they did not even invite 
Mr. Roberts into that meeting. They did not quite have the confidence in 
him, I presume, that might have been expected, and he was not in there. 
There was present in that caucus that framed this list of appointments for 
Marshall County Mr. J. B. Stearnes, chairman of the Democratic executive 
committee of Marshall County; Mr. R. E. Walker, the Democratic nominee 
for county commissioner; and Mr. T. E. Orr, who was a Democratic member 
of the legislature. No Republican was consulted; no Republican was invited 
in there; no Republican was given any information as to what went on in 
there, as I will show you. 

“ * * * I again went to Mr. Roberts’s barber shop and told him that as 

the time was very short for making a registration of the women vote of the 
county I desired a list of the appointments so I could send my friends abroad 
in the county to notify the people. I suggested to Mr. Roberts that if he would 
get the list I would go into the court room where a large crowd was assem¬ 
bled from all portions of the county and that I would request Judge Haralson 
to suspend court for a moment and allow the list read publicly. Mr. Roberts 
told me that he himself was in favor of doing it and that he would do all he 
could to get the list for me; this conversation was somewhere near 10 o’clock 
Saturday morning. I went back to see Mr. Roberts some two or three times 
between that and 3 o’clock that afternoon; each time he told me that he 
would do his best to get the list and let me have it as soon as he did. 

“During this time I continued to see the other two registrars going in and 
Dut of the room where Mr. Stearnes and Mr. Walker were. Somewhere about 
3 or 4 o’clock I saw Mr. Johnson and Mr. Scruggs leaving town”— 

They had made this list of appointments and in spite of the pleadings of 
Mr. Kennamer to get a list of them they framed up this list of appointments 
and, having completed it, they slipped out of town without letting a single, 
solitary soul know anything about where the registrations were going to begin 
on the following Monday. That occurred at 3 o’clock in the afternoon of Sat¬ 
urday, and these gentlemen were slinking away from there without having 
given Mr. Roberts, their associate on the board, any information as to where 
the registrations were going to begin. 

“ * * * I again requested the list of Mr. Roberts. He told me they had 
made out a list of appointments but he himself had been unable to get a 
copy of the list, but that he understood that the registration would commence 
on the north side of the river Monday.” 

That was all the information we were able to get, although there was a 
courthouse full of people there at the time from every part of that county 


KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. 


11 


to hear a case that had attracted a great deal of interest, and these men went 
right from the court room with that list of appointments in their pocket; when 
they could have made it public to hundreds of those men from every portion 
of the county, they went away from there without notifying anyone where 
that registration was going to begin. 

It began on the following Monday in the precinct where Mr. Stearnes lived 
and in the precinct where Mr. It. E.' Walker, the Democratic nominee, lived, 
and the testimony shows they went home and began to circularize individuals 
among their Democratic friends to look out for the registrars on the following 
Monday, and no notice was given to t he Republicans; the Republicans knew noth¬ 
ing about it. The Democrats succeeded in gelt ng a good many of their women 
to meet the registrars on Monday at these points. 

Mr. Rainey. Is that the county where they visited every precinct? 

Mr. Street. Marshall; yes; they did. I want to show you how they did it. 
They traveled in our county 812 miles, I believe in getting around, and I want 
you to read, on pages 31, 32, and 33, the list of appointments they made and the 
manner in which they undertook to till them. They would have better selected 
a few places in the county and gone to them instead of attempting to visit all of 
them, because their visits there amounted to practically nothing anyway. 

Mr. Box. That time fixed, during which they were to sit at the courthouse 
was the latter portion of the registration period, was it? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir; the latter portion of the registrat'on period. 

Mr. Box. So that the time they had to visit in the rural sections was the first 
of the period of registration? 

Mr. Street. That is right; but practically no notice whatever was given. 

Mr. Weaver. How many precincts are there in Marshall County? 

Mr. Street. Twenty-seven. 

Mr. Weaver. Is it a large county or a small county? 

Mr. Street. It is a small county in our district; or, rather, it "is 560 square 
miles. It is a large county as compared with the counties in some of the States. 
Of course, some of the States have rather small counties; others larger. For 
instance, let us take that Monday, that first day in Marshall County. They 
made three appointments that day in one Democratic beat, the Democratic beat 
of Paint Rock, as you will find on pages 31 and 32 of our brief. They made 
three appointments on that day in the Democratic beat of Paint Rock, that cast 
109 votes for Mr. Rainey, and only one appointment in two Republican beats, 
and one of them cast 133 votes and the other one cast 98 votes. 

Mr. Norton. By appointments, you mean they des’gnated places? 

Mr. Street. Yes; three appointments in Paint Rock beat and one in each of 
those other two Republican beats, and either one of them cast as many votes as 
the Democrat c beat. 

Mr. Ciiindblom. Did they have the discretion to name as many places in a 
single beat as they wanted to? 

Mr. Street. They exercised it, whether they had the authority or not. 

Mr. Chindblom. Is there any law on the subject? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; but they did actually sit to register voters in three places 
in Paint Rock beat, although the notices did not say where they would be. 

Mr. Norton. How large a beat is Paint Rock? 

Mr. Street. Paint Rock is about 4 miles one way and 2 the other. 

Mr. Norton. It is a country precinct? 

Mr. Street. It is a country precinct; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. May I call attention to section 31 of this law? It says: 

“ For the purpose of registering voters who have become qualified since 
January 5, 1920, the board of registrars shall, upon approval of this act, sit 
for the purpose of registering all persons who are entitled to legistei and 
remain in session each day thereafter, except Sunday, up to and including 
Tuesday, the 26tli day of October, 1920. Said board of registrars may sit at 
such places in the county as it deems most convenient to the public and best 
suited to the accomplishing of the registration of those ent.tled and desiring 
to register, at any time prior to Tuesday, October 19, 1920. 

Mr. Street. That is right; that is the provision. 

Mr. Rainey. I do not mean to interrupt you, but I would like to get this 
information: When the registrars stopped at one beat could the people from the 
adjoining beats go in there and register? 

Mr. Street. Legally, they could not, because the law itself expressly says a 
voter can register only in his own beat or at the courthouse. 


12 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


The Chairman. Do you think under this section that that is in any manner 
modified ? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir; by other provis'ons of the statute, I think it is. 

The Chairman. I mean this section 31 I have just read. Do you think the 
general law is in any manner modified by the provision that they can sit at 
any place? 

Mr. Street. The general law is not modified by the section you read. 

The Chairman. But is it for the election of 1920? 

Mr. Street. This section you read there is for this emergency registration. 

The Chairman. You think for the 1920 registration it would be modified by 
this section? 

Mr. Street. It does change the general law on that in that the general law 
requires them to visit each precinct; whereas this emergency provision says 
they may exercise a discretion about where they go. 

Mr. Box. That applies only to 1920? 

Mr. Street. That applies only to 1920. I will get to that in a moment in dis¬ 
cussing what I think is the legal effect of this registration that may perhaps 
give you a little more light upon our views upon it. I was trying to show that 
in the way in which they made their appointments they d'scriminatqd against 
the Republican votes. For instance, take on Thursday in our county. On 
Thursday they gave two appointments in the Democratic beat to Grassy, which 
cast 195 votes. They gave one appointment to the Republican beat of Friend¬ 
ship, which cast 657 votes. l r ou will find that on Friday they gave three 
appointments in a precinct which has usually been uniformly Democratic, 
although we took it away from them in this election; and they gave only one 
appointment to an equally strong adversary Republican beat on that day. 

That goes through all of this; it is all set out here in the brief, carefully 
figured out. And for every statement made in this brief we refer to the 
printed record, where you can find the testimony to support that statement. 

Mr. Box. That precinct where they cast 600 votes; how was that situated 
with reference to its accessibility to the county seat? 

Mr. Street. It was easily accessible. I mean by that there were good roads, 
but it lay anywheres from 15 to 20 miles from the county seat. 

Mr. Box. Is there a railroad from there to the county seat? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; there is no railroad. 

Mr. Box. Just a dirt road? 

Mr. Street. Just a dirt road, a very good dirt road, and it lies anywhere 
from 15 to 20 miles from the county seat. I will not tax your patience further 
by going through this. 

Mr. Box. How do you show that precinct actually went? 

Mr. Street. Overwhelmingly Republican; four or five to one Republican. 
They went there at 5 o’clock in the afternoon in that precinct, where there 
were at least 500 women or more to be registered. They went there at 5 
o’clock in the afternoon to meet those women to register them at the very 
hour of the day when it was most inconvenient and impossible for them to go. 

The Chairman. Assuming that to be correct, did these women register and 
vote? 

Mr. Street. No, sir ; they did not. 

The Chairman. I want to hear something on that. You say that was a 
precinct that went overwhelmingly Republican. 

Mr. Street. ! T es, sir; it went overwhelmingly Republican. The testimony 
is this, that there were 700 women in the precinct. The vote of that precinct 
was 657, both men and women, and the testimony in the record is that many 
of the women, a great many of them—and most of them according to the 
testimony by men on the spot who know, who say there were Republican 
women who were not registered and consequently could not vote. 

Mr. Box. Some of them voted? 

Mr. Street. In that beat; yes, sir. 

Mr. Norton. Were there any beats anywhere that the Republican women 
did not vote in? 

Mr. Street. I suppose there was not a beat in the county where there Was 
not some Republican woman vote cast. I would not pretend to say there 
was a single beat where there was not some Republican woman vote cast. 

Mr. Box. If there were 700 women there and something like 700 men 
there- 

. Mr. Street. l T es, sir. 

Mr. Box. And you think some ladies voted- 




KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


13 


Mr. Street. Some ladies voted. 

Mr. Box. If the total vote east was G57, that showed that not nearly all of 
the men voted. 

Mr. Street. No, sir. A great many of them were disfranchised by the poll 
tax law we have. We have a cumulative poll tax law, which has been in effect 
since 1900, and you have to show a clean bill of health. 

The Chairman. Does not that have the same effect on the women? 

Mr. Street. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But the other law, does that apply the same restrictions 
to them? 

Mr. Street. It does now. As to property and also the educational test. 

Mr. Box. Precisely; since the passage of this new law. 

Mr. Chindblom. What was involved in the act of registration ; how many 
questions were asked and what were they required to do to register? 

Mr. Street. I really could not answer that. There was practically nothing 
required, except as this record show, where in Mr. Rainey’s county, for 
instance, the proof is very clear—one of the main things they sought to find 
out was whether they were Democrat or Republican. There is testimony 
to show this in Etowah County, Mr. Rainey’s county, that when a Republican 
would take a group of women before that board they would be turned down 
on some pretext or other. Then these women would go out and on the very 
same day get some Democrat to go in there before the board and vouch 
for them and get them to register them. 

Mr. Chindblom. What inquiries were they required to make under the 
law of a woman who came to register? 

Mr. Street. Quite a number. The law requires a form of oath to be taken, 
and you will find that in section 12, on page 320, of this statute. 

Mr. Norton. How many days were allowed for registration? 

Mr. Street. I have not got the exact number. 

Mr. Norton. How many days were allowed for the entire registration? It 
is in your brief, but I do not recall what it is. 

Mr. Street. You will find that on page 5 of the brief. 

Mr. Norton. How many is it? 

Mr. Street. It is the time allowed in each county. It varies. 

Mr. Norton. I mean, supposing they had taken the entire time they could 
have taken for registrations, how long would it have been? 

Mr. Street. I could not answer that. 

Mr. Norton. There must have been some definite time that the registrars had 
to register; how long was it? 

Mr. Street. As soon as they qualified they were supposed to begin work. 

Mr. Norton. How long did they cont'nue? 

Mr. Street. You will find that on page 5 of that brief, where six days were 
given to Blount County to cover 34 precincts; one to Cherokee County to cover 
31 precincts- 

Mr. Norton. Did they use up their entire t'me every day for registration? 

Mr. Street. In some counties they d d and in some they did not. 

Mr. Norton. How long would they have had if they had taken the whole time 
in all of the counties from the 1st of January to the 1st of February? 

Mr. Street. In January there was a registration under the general law. 

Mr. Box. When did it begin and when did it end—the time of that registra- 

Mr. Street. Just as soon as the registrars could qualify and go to work after 
they were appointed the registration could have begun. 

Mr. Box. When did it begin? 

Mr. Street. That varied. 

Mr. Box. What is the date of it? 

Mr Street. There was no fixed date. 

Mr! Norton. There must have been some time for registering. 

Mr. Street. There was not. It may be there should have been, but there 


Mr. Chindblom. I think the gentleman has already stated that the last e ! ght 
days they were open for registration in the county seats. 

Mr. Norton. When did that end? 

Mr. Street. October 26. 

Mr Norton. When was the first day of registration? 

Mr. Street. It varied. It began in different counties on different days. 

Mr. Norton. In the first counties, then? 



14 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Mr. Street. Here it is; look at page 4 of our bvief and you will find it began 
in Blount County on October 12. 

Mr. Norton. That was the first registration? 

Mr. Street. That was the first registration. 

Mr. Norton. Had they any right to continue longer than October 26? 

Mr. Street. No, sir. The evidence shows, however, that the Democratic regis¬ 
trations did continue longer than that, and they registered voters up to two 
weeks before election. 

Mr. Box. And that included the time they had to spend at the county seats? 

Mr. Street. Precisely. And in Cherokee they did not begui to register until 
the 18tli day of October. 

y Mr. Box. I want to ask a question right on the point the gentleman seems to 
have in mind:‘When could they have properly qualified and begun the per¬ 
formance of their duties? 

Mr: Street. That may have varied sTghtly in the different count'es. 

Mr. Box. You complain in your brief the record shows they were appointed 
late? 

Mr. Street. They were appointed late; yes, sir. 

Mr. Box. Suppose they went faithfully about the performance of their duties, 
when could those gentlemen have begun their work? 

Mr. Street. I think Friday, October 8, was about as early as they could have 
begun. 

Mr. Box. When did they begin first? 

Mr. Street. In De Kalb County they began Friday, October 8, and I think 
that is about as early a date as they could have begun work. 

The Chairman. That is the largest county, is it? 

Mr. Street. That is the largest county in the district, outside of Etowah 
County. Etowah County is the strongest in vot'ng. 

Mr. CiTrxmu.OM. What is the earliest date on which the governor could have 
made the appointments? 

Mr. Street. The governor made the appointments about the 5th or 6th ; I 
will say about the 6th. 

Mr. Chindblom. When did the law become effective? 

Mr. Street. The 2d day of October, and it was promulgated about the 6th. 
Our complaint there is this, that everybody knew that law was going to be 
passed. The governor knew the law was going to be passed. It seems to ns 
that list should have been ready for promulgation as soon as that became a law, 
and we see no necessity for the delay there of four or five days, which was a 
vital thing. Four or five days ordiriarily would not amount to much; but under 
the conditions existing here four or five days was of tremendous importance. 

Mr. Matthews. In some States that was done, was it not—the governors 
were ready with the lists and announced them? 

Mr. Street. That is my understanding. I would not say positively, but it is 
my understanding that is true, that it was done simultaneously with the law 
becoming effective. 

Mr. Chindblom. I note on page 4 of your brief that in Cherokee County the 
registrars first began on October 18? 

Mr. Street. That is correot. 

Mr. Chindblom. When were they appointed? 

Mr. Street. They were appointed about the 5th or 6tli. 

Mr. Chindblom. Was there any reason assigned by anybody for delaying the 
beginning of their work? 

Mr. Street. Nobody gave any explanation of that delay; none in the world. 
And they began there at Spring Garden, a strong Democratic center, over¬ 
whelmingly Democratic—they began at Spring Garden, and that is absolutely 
the only appointment they made in any country district to which they gave any 
publicity, any advertising. 

Mr. Chindblom. Did the governor make all the appointments of registrars at 
the same time? 

Mr. Street. Some cla’m they got their notice later than others. I do not know 
whether the appointments were made all at the same time, or not, but some of 
the registrars cla : m they got their appointment at a later date than others admit 
to have received theirs; so that there may have been a difference of a day or 
two. 

The Chairman. Does the evidence disease just when the appointments were 
made by the governor? 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


15 


Mi*. Street. Not definitely. Wq could not set at it. The 5th or 6th, the 
witnesses stated, they received notice of their appointment. 

Mr. Chindblom. Would it depend on the day the notices were mailed, or 
won hi it depend upon the record in the governor’s office as to when the appoint¬ 
ments were made? 

Mr. Street. I presume the record in the governor’s office would show; hut I 
do not know whether it would or not. 

The Chairman. Did you try to get this record from the governor’s office? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; we did not try to get this record from the governor’s 
office as to when the appointments were made. 

The Chairman. Did you try to ascertain from the registrars the dates of 
tke'r receiving notice? 

Mr. Street. Yes, s r; that is in the record, I think, as to every county in the 
district, and it appears from that they rece.ved the notice on the 5th or 6th, 
some one day and some the other. 

Now, the thing about which we complain most I have not yet touched upon. 
What I have said up to this time is to show that the act itself, and the com¬ 


bined action of the registrars themselves was to give the Democratic communi¬ 
ties an overwhelming advantage in the registration of their women. Now, when 
these registrars came to the carrying out of this law, in my judgment, they 
transcended the bounds of the law. They transcended all the bounds of fairness. 
They made certain published appointments as I say, they gave these lame notices 
in the newspapers. But in addition to that, they surreptitiously visited several 
Democratic precincts in nearly every county in this district at night, without 
any notice given to any Republican of those gatherings. The Democrats would 
get together and group their women secretly and privately, out in a county dis¬ 
trict at a time when the law said they could only sit at the courthouse, and there 
they registered them, with no denial in the testimony at all. We had no means 
on earth of getting at how many women were registered at the different places 
they did visit in that surreptitious manner—at night, and a few* in the daytime— 
without any previous notice whatever—one of those registrars perhaps going 
by himself, and only one of them present. They would go out into the country 
at night, or in the daytime, without any notice, and they would go and take a 
list of the names of the Democratic women and they would bring these names 
back to the courthouse, one of the registrars would, and there they w*ould 
transcribe them on the registration book, without this voter or woman having 
appeared before the board at all. Just merely one member of the board would 
do that. 

Mr. Chindblom. Is there any testimony on that in the record? 

Mr. Street. Yes; it is absolutely overwhelming; it is not den’ed. They 
admitted it and tried to justify it on the ground that the law bears an interpre¬ 
tation of that sort. They do not deny that. 

The Chairman. Is there any claim by you that any of these women who 
were registered were not qualified voters in the precincts? 

Mr. Street. It is impossible for us to arrive at that and I will tell you why. 
Every registrar examined, we asked him if he could tell us who these people, 
registered in this illegal and improper maimer, were and he would say “ No,” 
tha they kept no list of those registered in that manner, separate from the others. 
And after that lapse of time, with such a great mass of women, they could not 
remember who were registered legally, appearing before the board, and who 
were registered illegally, without apppearing before the board. 

Mr. Weaver. Were they qualified voters? 

Mr. Street. We do not know. 

Mr. Weaver. If you saw the name of Mrs. James Smith on there, you had some 
machinery for telling whether she was a qualified elector? 

Mr. Street. We could have done that. 

Mr. Weaver. Now, do you, any place in this record, show that any of those 
women registered were not qualified? 

Mr. Street. Who were in the list? 

Mr. Weaver. Yes. 

Mi*. Street. No. sir; because we did not know those illegally registered from 
those legally registered. 

Mr. Weaver. I am talking about their qualifications. What you mean to say 
is you can not tell whether they were put on at one of those surreptitious meet¬ 
ings, or whether they applied in person; but what I am getting at is if they 
hail gone up to the courthouse during this week, that the law itself fixed notice 
of, would they have been qualified voters? 


16 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Mr. Street. If there had been an indefinite time allowed and an unbounded 
supply of funds with which to institute an inquiry of that sort, we might have 
shown every woman on that list who was qualified or not qualified. 

Mr. Weaver. Now, this was a difficult situation. I do not want you to mis¬ 
understand me, but this was a difficult s.tuation. Take the State of Maine; 
they had about three weeks in which to provide registration for their women, 
as I recall it. It was a difficult situation to take care of the women all over 
the country. 

Mr. Norton. We had three days. 

Mr. Weaver. And the question is, as I understand you—here was an emer¬ 
gency, the suffrage amendment, which was finally ratified on August 26. The 
Legislature of Alabama was called into special session on September 14. They 
got the law through by October 2. The governor appointed these registrars by 
October 5 or 6. Then they had to get their supplies to them, and, as I under¬ 
stand it, your complaint is now, as I get the situation, the law itself fixed this 
notice, of which everybody is presumed to know—I think everybody is presumed 
to know the law except, as they say, the lawyers. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Street. The court is not presumed to know the law. - 

Mr. Weaver. They were presumed to know the law. Now, the statute fixed, 
say, October 16 to October 26 as a certain definite period within which these 
registrars must sit at the county seats? 

Mr. Street. l T es, sir. 

Mr. Weaver. And anybody from any precinct could come up there? 

Mr. Street. That is correct. 

Mr. Weaver. Your complaint is that prior to that time the registrars had a 
right to fix, under this statute here, which says that they shall fix such places 
for registering as may seem to them best suited for the public convenience- 

Mr. Street. That is correct. 

Mr. Weaver. Now, during that period of time, your contention is that they 
did not do it fairly? 

Mr. Street. That is our contention as to that. 

Mr. Weaver. Now, what I want to do—I want to sort of direct your mind 
here as to what the committee is thinking. We are sitting here now on a 
definite case, and I would like to hear your argument whether or not, suppose 
all this were true, we can seat Mr. Kennamer over Mr. Rainey, or would we 
just have to declare a vacancy, if we came to the conclusion there had been a 
conspiracy down there? And what I want to call your attention to is whether 
you have evidence that so and so applied for registration and was refused or 
some direct testimony? 

Mr. Street. If you will permit me, without amplifying on what I am going 
to say now, I will try to answer the gentleman’s question there. I was really 
just coming to that. If these published appointments had been the only ones 
and there had been given notice of them as required by law, although they were 
discriminatory and unfair, it may be that we would not have had any legal 
ground of complaint. But I was coming to where they abused that. When 
they were required to sit at the county seat the last eight days, here is what 
they did: One Democratic registrar would go out into this part of the county 
[illustrating] and he would come back with a list of names of women and 
transcribe them on the registration book. Another would go out to another 
part of the county and he would come back with a list of names and put them 
on the book. And a great part of the time only one of the registrars was sitting 
at the county seat, where the law required the whole board to sit during the 
whole eight days. 

Now, they did not tell any Republicans to go out on secret expeditions, but 
they would go out in the nighttime and never gave the Republicans notice of 
any such appointments as that. This record is full of it. They do not try to 
deny it; they claim they were justified in do ng that, when the law of Alabama 
says when any man adds a name to a registration list who did not appear in 
person he is guilty of a felony and must be put in the penitentiary for not 
less than one year. And yet they claim this law justified that. 

I have not the time to elaborate on that. I understand most of the members 
of this committee are lawyers and you can read the law and understand it for 
yourselves—whether or not it permits a thing of that sort. 

And not only that, but they did this; not only did the registrars themselves 
go on these secret missions, but, as this record shows, scores of Democratic 
partisans in every county in that district either took it upon themselves or, pre¬ 
suming to act upon some sort of an authority given them by the registrars, and 



KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


17 


went out on these expeditions and got up lists of Democratic women and brought 
them in, and they were transcribed on the registration lists as qualified voters 
without a single solitary one of them ever appearing before any member of the 
board or taking any oath. 

And not only that, but it was sufficient for a Democrat, if he happened to be 
at a distance, to write to some member of the board or friend in this county 
seat where the registrars were sitting, and ask the registrars to see that a 
certificate be sent to their wife, and it came without delay. Those things are 
in here without dispute. These registrars do not pretend to deny it. They 
admit themselves; according to the testimony, they would sign up a number of 
reg.stratum certificates in blank and they would divide those certificates among 
tin* three registrars, and those registrars would go abroad with their pockets 
full of registration certificates, signed in blank, and if they met up with a 
woman who desired to register, all they had to do was to fill out that slip of 
paper and carry it back to the courthouse and transcribe the name on the 
registration book. And the record here shows that that was done in hundreds 
and thousands of instances. 

In fact, we tried to get out of these registrars the names of those who had 
been done that way and we could not do it; we could not ascertain them. They 
said they d d not know those registered in that manner. 

Mr. Chindblom. Are there any other subjects you want to touch on? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; I am going to rely upon my brief for them. Except 
I am going to touch on one further thing, and that is this: We have shown the 
prec nets; we have shown here what I think is clear proof of conspiracy. We 
were unable to identify those who were registered in til's illegal manner. The 
registrars themselves said they could not tell. We do, however, show the pre¬ 
cincts in which these secret registrations were held; we show where they went 
out in these various prec'ncts in the different counties. Now, our contention 
is this, that when we prove that a secret expedition was made by these Demo¬ 
cratic partisan registrars, either one or all three of them, to places in the 
precinct at the time when the law says they can only sit at the courthouse, that 
persons registered there were illegal registrants. It is a judicial body, wh'ch 
cnmoidy sit where the lav/ says it may sit. 

We further show the precincts in which these illegal registrations were held. 

Now, we take this position, that wherever that is shown and it was in pur¬ 
suance of what we believe to have been a common understanding, that it taints 
the registration of that precinct. 

Mr. Weaver. That is the point I want you to come to. I wanted to get your 
view as to the law on this situation. 

Mr. Street. When we show this illegal registration was carried on in a pre¬ 
cinct, but do not show, and can not show, to what extent it was carried on, be¬ 
cause the registrars say themselves they do not know, it being obviously in 
pursuance of a general understanding all over the district, because the same 
thing was done in every county in the district, then the burden of proof devolves, 
I think, upon the contestee to show how many of those registrants were regis¬ 
tered in that illegal manner in that particular beat. 

The Chairman. Do you think the rule is changed as to the burden of proving 
the illegality? 

Mr. Street. Where a conspiracy is shown, I do; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You mean when a conspiracy has been shown. 

Mr. Street. That is correct. I admit this to be the law, I think, that if 
there is an isolated case of fraud of one man here, another here, and another 
there [illustrating] of different kinds and nothing showing any community of 
action and purpose among them, then you have to show the extent of the fraud 
perpetrated at each one of those places; but when you show a conspiracy among 
persons of one of the counties to perpetrate a fraud of a certain kind and you 
find that same fraud here, and here, and here, and here, and here [illustrating], 
everywhere throughout the district, you establish a conspiracy. And as I un¬ 
derstand the precedents—I have read carefully the precedents laid down in 
Rowell’s Historical Digest—and, as I gather it, when you show in pursuance 
of a conspiracy illegalities perpetrated either in the registration or in the voting, 
then the presumption is different, and the burden then shifts onto the con¬ 
testee to explain the extent of that fraud that was perpetrated in that precinct 
in pursuance of this general conspiracy. 

Now, I have collected some of the authorities on that and you will find them 
cited in the brief and I have not the time to discuss them. You will find our 

9 


G2061—21 



18 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


theory set forth here in the concluding portion of this brief, ns to how we think 
the law requires a tiling of that kind to he handled—that when we show fraud, 
have proved fraud in certa n precincts, in pursuance of a conspiracy, that the 
rule is to shift the burden of proof onto the contestee to expla n the extent of 
that fraud. 

Mr. Chindblom. There are other points raised in your brief than those you 
have discussed? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chindblom. You are not abandoning them by reason of your failure to 
discuss them? 

Mr. Street. No, sir; not at all, but because the time is too short to discuss 
them. 

(At 12 m. the committee thereupon adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, July 
29, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m.) 


Committee on Elections No. 3, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday , July 29, 1921. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Cassius C. Dowell (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. A quorum is present. Mr. Rainey, you may now proceed 
one hour and a half. 

Mr. Rainey. I will introduce Mr. Hood. 

STATEMENT OF MR. 0. R. HOOD, COUNSEL FOR CONTESTEE. 

Mr. Hood. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am laboring under 
considerable embarrassment. I presume you are all lawyers and can appre¬ 
ciate the embarrassment of a lawyer who undertakes to answer or reply to an 
argument that lie did not hear. Unfortunately, when notice of tlrs hearing 
came to Alabama or, rather, unfortunately for me. I was engaged in the trial 
of a case in a county away from my home and was unable to arrive here earlier 
than to-day. Hence, I can not promise you gentlemen to very greatly aid you 
in this hearing. 

The contestee is not only laboring under an embarrassment now, but has been 
since the filing of the notice and statement of contest in this case, on account of 
the fact that the grounds of contest are stated in such general and vague terms, 
as practically no notice whatever was conveyed to the contestee. I will read 
you just a few of those grounds in order that you may see and understand the 
embarrassment that the contestee and his counsel have labored under in the 
preparation of his answer and his defense in this case. For example, the first 
one: 

“ That illegal votes were cast for the said L: B. Rainey at said election for 
Representative in said Congress, which, if deducted from the votes cast for said 
L. B. Rainey, would reduce the number of legal votes for said L. B. Rainey 
to or below the number of legal votes cast for the undersigned contestant at 
said election for said office.” 

You can imagine the information the contestee received from that ground of 
contest. 

“ 2. That legal votes offered to be cast for the undersigned contestant at said 
election for said office were rejected, which if added to the legal votes cast for 
contestant would increase the number of legal votes given to him at said elec¬ 
tion for said office to or beyond the number of legal votes cast for the said 
L. B. Rainey.” 

Mr. Chindblom. Let me ask counsel this question : Does the statute have any 
specific requirements as to what shall be contained in the notice? 

Mr. Hood. Yes, sir; the statute requires that the grounds be set forth particu¬ 
larly. 

Mr. Chindblom. I do not want to divert you? 

Mr. Hood (interposing). I do not mind interruptions at all. 

Mr. Chindblom. I do not want to divert you so that you will lose time. 

Mr. Hood. I will read the statute: 

“ Whenever any person intends to contest an election of any Member of 
the House of Representatives of the United States he shall, within 30 days 
after the result of such election shall have been determined by the officer or 
board of canvassers authorized by law to determine the same, give notice, in 



KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


19 


writing, to the Member whose seat he designs to contest, of lrs intention to 
contest the same, and in such notice shall specify particularly the grounds upon 
which he relies in the contest.” 

He must specify particularly. I have made a short excerpt from corpus 
jurus with reference to what it is necessary to specify particularly: 

“ In a statutory proceeding to contest an election, the initial pleading, 
whether it is termed a declaration, complaint, petition, or notice and state¬ 
ment, must state the grounds of consent with clearness and, precision and show 
them to he material.” 

That is substantially the language of the act. 

“And in some jurisdictions the contestant is limited to the grounds specifically 
set forth. 

“ But it is not essential that the contestant set forth the grounds of his con¬ 
test with the precision required of a pleading in a civil action.” 

Not with that precision required in a common-law pleading. 

“ Certainly, to a common intent, being all that is generally required, and 
technical objections will be disregarded. The petition or complaint must 
apprise the contestee of the particular facts relied upon as invalidating his 
election, and general charges of fraud, mistake, intimidation, etc., will be dis¬ 
regarded, unless the alleged acts relied on are set out in detail; although it has 
also been said that a petition in a contest on the ground of fraud, which neces¬ 
sarily imports that the fraud entered into the result, is sufficient, although it 
fails to charge such facts in terms. A mere allegation that the contestant 
received more votes than the contestee is insufficient; and according to some 
authorities, the petition should allege the number of votes cast for each can¬ 
didate. 

“ The pleading must show on its face facts and circumstances of such a 
character as reasonably to establish that some other person than the incumbent 
was legally elected to the office which the incumbent holds. Where the contest 
is based on the charge that persons who were not legal voters were allowed to 
vote, the cause of d isqualification must be alleged but fraud on the part of the 
election fficers is not a necessary allegation. 

“ Irrelevant allegations and specifications of mere irregularities not affecting 
the result of the election will be stricken out on motion, and if the petition 
contains inconsistent averments the contradictory part should he stricken out.” 

That is the rule obtaining genera'ly in the courts of law throughout the 
country. I understand, of course, that committees in this House do not 
strictly follow those rules of law. 

Mr. Chindhlom. I presume you do not know of any cases where an election 
committee of the House has based its action upon matters of pleading. 

Mr. Hood. I have not had the time lo examine all of those cases, but—— 

Mr. Chindblom (interposing). I do not imagine there are any such cases. 

Mr. Hood. I do not know, but here is a rule laid down by a committee in one 
of the Congresses: 

“ Under this provision the House has held to the general rule that the intent 
of the law is to prevent any surprise being practiced upon the sitting Member 
and to put him upon a proper defense, and all that can be said is that a notice 
which does this is sufficient and one which does not is insufficient and it must 
be left to the House to decide each particular case on its own merits.” 

I take it that is the rule applying to congressional committees. In this 
compilation of contested election cases I did note, in coming up on the train 
this statement by one of the committees. 

Mr. Chindblom. What is the title of that book? 

Mr. Hood. Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives, 1901- 
1917: 

“ Under no circumstances should the contestant be permitted to impeach the 
title of the returned Member by general averments of error, fraud, bribery, 
and coercion. The grounds upon which a contestant relies in any given case 
must be specifically set forth in the notice of contest. If the returned member 
is not sufficiently apprised of the nature of the case he is to meet he can not 
be expected to intelligently prepare his defense.” 

I take it that is the rule the committees follow. 

Without undertaking to read all of these grounds of contest, I will skip to the 
seventh: 

“ That the inspectors, clerks, and returning officers, Democratic partisan sup¬ 
porters of sa:d L. B. Rainey, were guilty of fraud, malconduct, or corruption 


20 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


in said election in that they did knowingly and intentionally and for the 
purpose of influencing the voters to cast their ballots for said L. B. Rainey 
permit partisan supporters of the said L. B. Rainey to congregate within 30 
feet of the voting place and then and there to electioneer for the said L. B. 
Rainey and against contestant, and that thereby voters were influenced to 
vote for said L. B. Rainey and against contestant, which, if deducted from 
the votes given to said L. B. Rainey, would reduce the number of legal votes 
cast for said Rainey to or below the number of legal votes cast for contestant.” 

You see, it is very general; it does riot point out time, place, or person, but 
I do not suppose it is necessary to point out time because it necessarily oc¬ 
curred in the election. 

Now, to take up another one, the thirteenth: 

“ That the registrars of voters, all of whom were Democratic partisans of 
the said L. B. Rainey, were guilty of malconduct in said election in that they' 
did afford every convenience and opportunity to supporters of said L. B. Rainey 
to register and throw every possible obstacle in the way of supporters of con¬ 
testant registering, and that they did knowingly register many supporters of 
said L. B. Rainey who were disqualified and did thereby prevent many qualified 
supporters of contestant from registering, and that thereby many votes were 
gained for the said L. B. Rainey and many votes lost for contestant, and that 
but for said malconduct the number of legal votes cast for contestant would 
have equaled or exceeded the legal votes cast for said L. B. Rainey.” 

Mr. Street. Will you be kind enough to read No. 14? 

Mr. Hood. I will read No. 14, at the suggestion of my friend, and see if it 
helps us any: 

“ That the registrars of voters, all of whom were Democratic partisan sup¬ 
porters of L. B. Rainey, did in violation of law fail to give public notice of the 
time and place where they would be present for the registration of voters, but 
did send private word to the friends and supporters of said L. B. Rainey that 
one or more of the registrars would be at a certain place at a certain time to 
register voters and to get the supporters of said L. B. Rainey to meet them 
at such time and place to be registered, and that one or more of the registrars 
would surreptitiously repair to the appointed place at the appointed time, and 
did there register the supporters of the said L. B. Rainey; that the registrars 
in going from place to place would stop and register the supporters of said 
L. B. Rainey wherever found, and if solicited to register by a supporter of 
contestant would make some excuse for declining to register him or her; that 
at a time when the law forbid the registrars from registering voters at any 
other place than at the county seat, one or more of said registrars would 
desert his post of duty and repair to the country district looking up and regis¬ 
tering supporters of the said L. B. Rainey; that the registrars in violation of 
law deputized tlrrd persons, who had no authority to do so, to travel through 
the county hunting up the supporters of said L. B. Rainey and registering 
them, in flagrant violation of the law; that many names, to wit, thousands 
of names of supporters of I.. B. Rainey, were placed on the registration list 
who never appeared before a single one of the registrars; that they know¬ 
ingly applied one test to supporters of L. B. Rainey who applied for reg'stra- 
tion and a different test in like case of supporters of contestant, and did 
thereby knowingly register disqualified supporters of the said L. B. Rainey 
and knowingly refused to register qualified supporters of contestant; that 
many supporters of said L. B. Rainey appeared before one only of the regis¬ 
trars and was, in violation of law, registered by him, whereas the law ex¬ 
pressly requires at least two of the registrars to be present; that the reg¬ 
istrars intimidated many supporters of contestant and thereby influenced 
them not to register; that the registrars sent by mail to supporters of the said 
L. B. Rainey registration certificates who had never appeared before even a 
single one of the registrars, and to others they sent certificates by messengers. 
That by reason of said malconduct the said L. B. Rainey was given many 
votes to which he was not entitled and contestant was deprived of many vote's 
to which he was entitled, and but for such misconduct the number of legal 
votes received by contestant would have equaled or exceeded the number of 
legal votes received by said L. B. Rainey.” 

It will be observed that. No. 14, the. one the gentleman asked me to read, is 
very general. There are seven counties in that district. There were 21 regis¬ 
trars. or seven boards of registration, some 200 voting precincts, and some 
30,000 or 40,000 people voting in that election. Neither tune, place, person, nor 
numbers are set forth in that notice, but mere general averments. It did not 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


21 


put contestee on notice except, generally speaking, that contestant claimed these 
irregularities had occurred. We have tiled a demurrer to the notice and state¬ 
ment. Those are about the matters that I desired to call to the attention of 
the committee in reference to the notice and statement. It certainly is very gen¬ 
eral, so general that it has not put contestee on notice. 

Coming now to other questions involved in.the contest, it is the theory, as 
I understand it, and the contention of contestant that a conspiracy was formed 
among the governor of the State of Alabama, the legislature of the State, the 
State Democratic executive and campaign committee, and, perhaps, other'par¬ 
tisans and friends of the contestee, in the calling of a special session of the 
legislature to provide for the registration of women, in the appointment of reg¬ 
istrars. and the registration of the women in that State. It is first contended 
that the governor delayed an unreasonable time in calling the legislature. Well, 
I believe the proclamation of the woman’s suffrage amendment was made on 
the 26th day of August; on the 28th day of August the governor of Alabama 
issued a proclamation calling an extra session of the legislature. That legis¬ 
lature was called to convene on the 14th day of September. My friend contends 
that that was an unreasonable delay. I take it that it is not necessary to argue 
to representatives in a great legislative body such as this that it was*necessary 
to give the members of the legislature, residing in all the counties of the State, 
an opportunity to arrange their business affairs and to attend the opening of 
the session. So 14 or 16 days were given to them for that purpose, and that 
was the only time that was given. 

Mr. Chindblom. I take it the constitution of Alabama or the laws of Alabama 
do not fix any period of notice. 

Mr. Hood. No. 

Mr. Chindblom. Has there been any custom in Alabama in the calling of 
special sessions of the legislature? 

Mr. Hood. Nothing more than the custom of giving the members of the two 
houses an opportunity to arrange their business affairs and to attend the he¬ 
ir lining of the session. 

Mr. Norton. It is a question of judgment with the governor. 

Mr. Hood. Yes; but if he did not give them sufficient time there would not be 
a quorum at the opening of the session, as we all know, because the members of 
the legislature are compelled to arrange their bus ness affairs before they can 
attend. 

Then it is next contended that the legislature itself unreasonably delayed 
the passage of the bill. Well, this is the history of its passage, as can be shown 
by the journals of the two houses. 

Mr. Chindblom. Before you start that wliat is the membership of the two 
houses? 

Mr. Hood. Of the lower house, 105. and of the upper house, 35. On the very 
first day of the session a man by the name of Shaw, a representative from one 
of the counties in our State, introduced the bill. It had its first reading on 
that day and was referred to a committee; on the second day the committee re¬ 
ported it back to the House and it had its second reading on that day; on the 
third day it had its third reading, was passed, and was sent to the senate with¬ 
out engrossment. On that day it had its first reading in the senate and was 
referred to a committee. 

Mr. Box. Does the constitution contain any regulations as to the number 
of readings of bills and the time for the readings. 

Mr. Hood. Our constitution requires three separate readings on separate 
days. The comm'ttee in the Senate reported the bill on the sixth day with 
amendments which practically amounted to a substitute: on the seventh day 
it was reached on the calendar of the senate, late in the afternoon, and on 
motion was passed over to the eighth day; on the eighth day the substitute was 
adopted or the amended bill, as it is called. It is called an amendment in some 
places and a substitute on the senate journal. 

On the eighth day the substitute was adopted and sent to the house without 
engrossment. The house nonconcurred, appointed a conference committee and 
notified the senate; on that day .the senate appointed a conference com¬ 
mittee, and the joint conference committee agreed on the substitute which was 
reported back to the two houses on the tenth day ; the two houses concurred in 
the report of the conference committee on the tenth day, and it was sent to 
the governor, I believe, on the eleventh day or the twelfth day. The governor 
returned the bill to the house, the house in which it had its origin, on the 


22 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


thirteenth day, without his approval, suggesting that two features of it were 
unconstitutional or probably so, and suggesting amendments relieving the act 
of its unconstitutionality, as he had a right to do under the constituton. On 
the fourteenth day the two houses passed the amendments suggested by the 
governor and sent the bill to the governor and it was signed by the governor 
on the 2d day of October. 

Mr. Norton. Was a new law required before women could register? 

Mr. Hood. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Norton. Under your old law could they not register if they became 
citizens? 

Mr. Hood. No; I believe not, at least, that seemed to be the opinion of the 
bar of the State. You know in our constitution the qualification of electors is 
defined, and the adoption of the nineteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitu¬ 
tion also amended our constitution. 

Mr. Chindblom. The constitution of the State of Illinois fixes the qualifica¬ 
tions of electors, and it was held that the proclamation of the nineteenth 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States automatically extended 
every existing law and every constitutional provision to the women, so that no 
further legislation was necessary. 

Mr. Norton. And the same thing exactly was held in Ohio. 

Mr. Hood. That was probably a correct holding 'n your State, but in our 
State the registrars do not convene and register voters each year, and I am 
quite sure—although I have not made a study of the question—that legisla¬ 
tive action was necessary. 

Mr. Chindblom. In other words, you had to provide machinery for the 
registration ? 

Mr. Hood. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Chindblom. We already had that machinery. 

Mr. Hood. Those are the facts, as shown by the record, with reference to any 
conspiracy entered into by the governor, the legislature, the partisans of Mr. 
Rainey, or any committee, whether Democratic or Republican. There was no 
conspiracy; none has been established by the proof, and the record absolutely 
demolishes that contention. 

My friend contends that the governor unreasonably delayed the appointment 
of registrars. The bill provided for the appointment of three registrars in 
each county. There are 67 counties in the State. This bill was approved on 
the 2d day of October, and he appointed all of these two hundred and odd 
registrars, supplies were provided and transported, and in De Kalb County, 
a county in tins district, they began the registration of women on the eighth 
day. or within six days after the act was approved by the governor. 

Before I leave this question of conspiracy, when this extraordinary session of 
the legislature was called, the registration laws in Alabama were a patchwork; 
some had been enacted at one session of the legislature and others at another 
session, so when this bill got into the senate and was referred to the senate 
committee, the senate committee, on reviewing the situation, concluded that it 
was necessary—and that it was the wise and proper time to do so—to enact 
a comprehensive statute on the subject of registration, and that they did do. 
The act that was approved on October 2—and of which my friend complains 
and charges as being the result of a conspiracy—is a comprehensive statute 
providing not only for the registration of men and women at this time and for 
that particular election but for the future and for all of the qualified electors 
of the State in the future. So it was quite an important hill, one that required 
careful consideration, especially by the committees and also by the two houses. 

I desire to call your attention to the fact that at that short session of the 
legislature, only consisting of 14 days, the governor also submitted a blue-sky 
law. a gas regulation bill, the matter of whether a State constitutional conven¬ 
tion should be called or not, the question of prescribing and defining the juris¬ 
diction of the State public service commission, as well as other questions. But 
those four or five important questions were submitted to the legislature, and 
the legislature in those 14 days dealt with those questions and enacted statutes 
for all except one, the one calling for a constitutional convention; the con¬ 
stitutional convention was not called, but just what time was devoted by the 
legislature to the discussion of that question I do not know. 

Mr. Chindblom. There is one point I would like to have made clear. Was 
there no provision for the registration of men prior to the national election of 
last November? 


' KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


23 


Mr. Hood. Oh, yes; but as I recall it we had at that time only one registrar 
who sat at the courthouse perhaps once every two years, or something like 
that. I am not very familiar with that statute. 

Mr. Street. He was required to visit each precinct and required to sit at the 
court house, too. 

Mr. Ohindrlom. Under that prior law could he exercise discretion in the mat¬ 
ter of going to the various precincts or was it his duty? 

Mr. Hood. No; it was his duty to do that. 

Mr. Chindulom. And was there a time fixed at which he should sit in each 
precinct ? 

Mr. Street. Yes; beginning the 1st of January. 

Mr. Hood. There was a time fixed within which he should sit, hut he fixed 
his own time for visiting the outlying precincts. 

Mr. Oh indulom. Frankly, what I am trying to get at is whether the new law 
cast any greater burdens upon those desiring to register than existed under the 
prior law? 

Mr. Hood. No. sir; to the contrary, it relieved a whole lot of them. 

Mr. Street. Except as to this special registration. 

Mr. Hood. And in this special registration I shall endeavor to show you that 
they undertook in that special registration to relieve the voter of certain burdens 
that were imposed upon him before that time. 

Gentlemen of the committee, so far as the question of conspiracy is con¬ 
cerned. there is nothing in this record establishing any conspiracy such as 
charged here, and I submit that when you sit down and read this record—if 
you have not already done so—you will find that there is nothing in that record 
or conta ned in it. that would support that serious charge. 

Coming to this registration statute—and I may as well do it here as at any 
other time—I behove the election took place on the first Tuesday in November. 
What was the date? 

Mr. Street. The 2d. 

Mr. Hood. It was the 2d day of November, was it? 

Mr. Street. Yes. 

Mr. Hood. This act was approved on the 2d day of October, just 30 days 
before that. The governor had to appoint registrars, supphes had to be 
printed and supplied to them, and they had to get out and register the people. 
You take my county as an example, Etowah County; there are thirty-odd 
voting precincts in that county— 34 or 36—I believe. 

Mr. Street. About 40. 

Mr. Hood. My friend says 40. So it was utterly impossible for these regis¬ 
trars to visit each one of those precincts. Hence the legislature passed these 
three sect ons, and these three sections—31, 32, and 33—apply solely to the 
registration that took place last October, and those three sections have no 
further use. Section 31 provides: 

“ For the purpose of registering all voters who have become qualified since 
January 5, 1920.” 

Those who had become qualified before that had already had an oppor¬ 
tunity of registering. 

“The board of registrars shall, upon the approval of this act. s ; t for the 
purpose of registering all persons who are entitled to register and remain 
in session each day thereafter, except Sunday, up to and including Tuesday, 
the 26th day of October, 1920. Said board of registrars may sit at such places 
in the county as it deems most convenient to the publ'c and best suited to 
accomplishing the registration of those entitled and desiring to register at any 
time prior to Tuesday, October 19, 1920.” 

Now, what did that mean? That meant that those registrars within the few 
days they had before they went to the county seats, were requ'red to go out 
into the outlying precincts in the counties and to sit at such places as would 
be most convenient to the public. In the future, under other provisions of the 
statute, an elector will either have to be registered in the precinct n which 
he resides or at the county seat, but at that particular time, under that sect on, 
these registrars, not having the time to visit each voting precinct, were allowed 
and instructed to go to such places as would be most convenient to the public 
and there register all who were qualified to register, which they did. If this 
board of reg stration happened not to sit in a particular precinct it was not 
necessary for a man or a woman to wait and go to the county seat; all they had 
to do was to attend the sitting in the adjoining county seat or in the Clearest 
precinct. 


24 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Mr. Street. Will you read section 8 of the act on that? 

Mr. Hood. Yes; I will read section 8 of the act, but that is a section that 
did not apply to this particular occasion. As I have explained to the com¬ 
mittee, this is a comprehensive act, one that was gotten up for the future, 
and not for that particular occasion. Sections 31, 32, and 33 applied to that 
particular occasion, but section 8 applies to the future. Section 8 reads as 
follows: 

“ No person shall be registered except at the courthouse or in the precinct 
or ward where he or she resides.” 

That is just what I have stated to the gentlemen of the committee, and that 
is the rule and has been the rule in Alabama for many years, until this emer¬ 
gency arose. That is the construction placed on that section by the registrars 
in most of the counties, but perhaps in some of them they did not place that 
construction; I am not sure, but I am quite sure that that is sound construc¬ 
tion and the construction that the legislature intended. They did not intend by 
the language used here that those registrars should simply select such beats 
or such voting precincts as they might select and go there and register only 
the qualified electors in that particular precinct. If that is what they intended 
why did they say “most convenient to the public”? Why did they say “for 
the purpose of serving the convenience of the people in that section of the 
county”? That is what it means. 

Mr. Chindb'lom. Were the registrars instructed that they might permit men 
and women to register without reference to their residence? 

Mr. Hood. So far as I know, they were. 

Mr. Street. There were never any such public instructions given. 

Mr. Hood. There is evidence in this record that* they did do it, and that is 
one of the chief grounds of complaint on the part of my friend, that those 
registrars registered people at these points where they sat away from the 
county seats, in precincts not their own or where they did not reside. 

Mr. Street. We have never made that objection. 

Mr. Hood. But that, as I understand your contention, is one of your objec¬ 
tions. 

Mr. Street. We have never made that objection. 

Mr. Hood. Then, we do not disagree on that. 

Mr. Street. We disagree about the construction of the law, but we have 
never made any objection to it. 

Mr. Hood. That is my construction of it, gentlemen of the committee, and I 
believe that when this committee takes these three sections and reads them in 
the light of the circumstances and conditions that existed down there at that 
time, it will find that those registrars did not have sufficient time to sit in each 
voting precinct; that they were instructed to visit such localities in the coun¬ 
ties as would be most convenient to the people, and that the committee will find 
that that is what it meant, that they should go and register people adjacent to 
or tributary to the points where they sat. 

Now, section 33 applies to the nofices they should give: 

“ The board of registrars shall give notice of the time and place the board 
will attend to receive applications and register electors, and when there is 
more than one courthouse in the county the board must give notice how the 
time fixed for sitting at the county site is divided and what time the board 
will be at each courthouse. The notice required by this act shall be posters 
posted at the courthouse or courthouses and such other public places in the 
county as will best serve to advise the public of the time and place of meeting 
of said board.” 

The reason of that was that a great many of the counties of Alabama are 
rural counties and those counties have no daily press, the newspapers being 
published once a week. On account of the short time, if they had waited to 
publish the notice in a weekly newspaper the time for the registration would 
have been over, or practically so, so that the law provided for the posting of 
these notices around the counties as well as could be done, and 1 am told that 
Is what they did. 

Mr. Street. Can you find a single place where they posted it in a single 
county? 

Mr. Hood. That is my information. You have bad some men who testified 
that they did not see the notice in their beats. I can not take the time to read 
this, but if you will read the registrars’ testimony you can ascertain what was 
done, and I notice a number of exhibits in the record of notices that were 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


25 


given. So they did the best they could, gentlemen of the committee, in the 
four, five, or six days that they had in which to register the people. 

Mr. Chindblom. Did the registrars attempt to go into all precincts? 

Mr. Hood. In one county, the county of my friend here and of the contestant, 
they attempted to go into all the precincts, but I think they made a mistake. 
How many precincts are in your county? 

Mr. Street. Twenty-seven. 

Mr. Hood. They undertook to visit 27 precincts in some 6 or 8 days; not 
longer than that. Of course, they could not give the requisite notice, but they 
undertook to do it, and, of course, they could not stay long in each precinct; 
they went to Republican and Democratic precincts alike. If they had selected 
three or four places, or four or five places, farthest away from the county seat 
of that county, out near the perimeters of the county, or outer edges, and gone 
there and registered the people around in those localities in order to save them 
from going to the county seat, they would perhaps have accomplished more than 
they did, or, at least, it would not have been so troublesome. 

Now, my friend complains that applications for registration were received 
that were not taken by the full board or that were taken by some one else. Let 
us see what is contained in the act relative to the receipt of applications. 

“ The board of registrars shall have power to examine, under oath or affirma¬ 
tion, all applicants for registration, and to take testimony touching the quali¬ 
fications of such applicants. Each member of such board is authorized to 
administer the oath to be taken by the applicants and witnesses, which shall 
be in the following form and subscribed by the person making it, and preserved 
by the board, namely.” 

Then it prescribes the form. There is another provision authorizing any 
person who is authorized to administer oaths to administer an oath to the 
applicant, and then section 84 provides: 

“ The board of registrars shall have the power and authority to make such 
rules and regulations as it deems proper for the receipt of applications for 
registration and the accomplishing in as expedient a manner as possible the 
registration of those entitled to register: Provided, however, That no person 
shall be registered until a majority of the board of registrars has passed favor¬ 
ably upon such person’s qualifications.” 

Now, what is the system there? The board consists of three members, two 
of whom constitute a quorum. It is the board that passes upon the qualifica¬ 
tions of the applicant; it is the board that registers, or as many as two of the 
board, but the law does not require the board to receive applicat oils ; indeed, 
the law does not require an application to lie made. If my friend Street’s 
wife had requested registration in his county, why should the board go 
through the formality of requiring Mrs. Street to come before them, administer 
an oath to her, and require her to subscribe to an oath on a written form? 
They knew Mrs. Street and they knew she was qualified, hence I have no 
doubt Mrs. Street was registered without the formality insisted upon by my 
friend. 

Mi-. Street. No, indeed, she was not. 

Mi*. Hood. Well, maybe not; 1 do not know. So under the section of the 
statute which I have just read to you, if a person seeks to be registered who 
is known to the registrars and known to possess the qualifications or some of 
the qualifications of an elector, they register him. 

Mr. Chindblom. Are you taking the position that section 34 applies only to 
this special registration? 

Mr. Hood. Oh, no; I do not think that. sir. According to my construction of 
the act section 34 of the act is one of the general provisions of the act which 
will remain in force as long as the art itself remains in force. 

Mr. Chindblom. You contend that section 31 applied only to this special 
rcgistra tion ? 

Mr. Hood. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chindblom. And that is true of section 32? 

Mr. Hood. Yes; I think so. ... 

Mr. Chindblom. Are they the only two that apply to this special legisla¬ 
tion? 

Mr. Hood. And section 33. 

Mr. Chindblom. Section 35 seems to apply to the general election to be held 

on Tuesday, November 2, 1920. t . ' . . ,, 

Mr Hood. That section did relate specifically to that election because the 
probate judge was required to get those lists ready for the election, as it was 


26 


KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. 


near by. I do not know that section 34 is material or whether it applies or 
will apply to future elections or not, but that is my construction of it, that it 
does and will. 

The Chairman. Your position is, as I understand it, that if the board de¬ 
cided that certain persons should be registered that by action of the board 
they may be registered? 

Mr. Hood. That is my position and I think it is undoubtedly sound, and it 
matters not to whom that person may have made the application or whether he 
made any application or not. 

Mr. Weaver. One of the positions, as I recall, taken by Mr. Street was not 
that they registered them without any application at all, but that many per¬ 
sons were registered upon applications taken by other persons, sworn to before 
some notary public or justice of the peace, and then presented to the board. 
What is your view about that? 

Mr. Hood. Well, that is the po'nt I was endeavoring to d'scuss. Of course, 
I do not mean—and I hope the committee does not understand that 1 would 
mean—that that board could sit in its office somewhere and say, “ Well, here is 
Jennie Smith over here; she is qualified and we will put her name on the 
book,” whether Jennie Smith wanted to be registered or not. 

The Chairman. That is not what I was gett'ng at. In th's case, as I under¬ 
stand it—I may be mistaken, however—these applications were in writing and 
sent to the board. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hood. That is my understanding, the ones he complains of. 

Mr. Street. The law requires that, but the evidence does not show that that 
was done where these registrants were brought in. 

Mr. Norton. Is there any evidence to the contrary? 

Mr. Street. Yes. 

The Chairman. Does the evidence show that these applications were made to 
the board in writing when they were registered? 

Mr. Hood. Well, I think as a general rule it does, although there may be some 
exceptions. 

Mr. Chindblom. We all know something about the pract'cal operation of 
politics. Under your construct on of the law would it be permissible for a 
precinct committeeman representing a polit cal party to take a list of people, 
have them say to him they desire to be registered, and then go to the board of 
reg strars and say to them, “Here is a 1st of people who have told me they 
wanted to be registered.” and then have the board reg ster them? Do you 
flunk they would have authority to do that? 

Mr. Hood. I do not believe that that kind of voting should be thrown out. 
It might be an irregularity if, as a partisan of the candidate or as a committee¬ 
man seeking to carry the election for my party or my candidate, I should go 
out and get a list of people, all of whom were qualified and elig ble to vote and 
all of whom desired to register, and caused them to be registered. 

d he Chairman. Does not section 34 provide for applications for registration? 

Mr. Hood. Surely. 


The Chairman. And does not that assume that an application should be 
made by the one who desires to be registered? 

Mr. Hood. Well, it does in a sense; yes. 

The Chairman. Section 34 provides: 

“The board of registrars shall have the power and authority to make such 
rules and regulations ' J ’ * 



ably upon such person’s qualifications 
Mr. Hood. Yes. 


The Chairman. Does not that assume the necessity of an application? 

Mr. Hood. Assume the necessity of a written application? 

The Chairman. Well, it does not say a written application, but an applica¬ 
tion of some kind by the one who desires to be registered. 

Mr. Street. Let me call your attention to section 11, and I think that answers 
his question. 

Mr. Chindblom. I was going to call attention to section 11. 

Mr. Hood. I believe I read that a while ago. 

The board of registrars shall have power to examine, under oath or affirma¬ 
tion, all applicants for legistration, and to take testimony touching the qualifi¬ 
cations of such applicants.” 


KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. * 27 

That is only when the hoard desires to examine the person who applies to he 
registered. 

Mr. Chindblom. They have power to examine all applicants for registration? 

Mr. Iloon. Yes. 

Mr. Chindblom. They have power to examine all applicants, hut really must 
they not all he applicants? 

Mr. Hood. I think they must he applicants, in some sense. 

Mr. Chindblom. Well, in wliat sense? 

Mr. Hood. Well, as I started to say a while ago, I do not believe that a hoard 
of registration in Alabama could sit down around a table, if they were all 
Democrats or all Republicans, and say, “Well, let us se’ect all Democratic or 
Republican women in this county and put their names on this book.” I believe 
that would he wrong, and I do not believe they would he allowed to register 
any under such circumstances. 

Mr. Chindblom. Suppose that instead of sitting down and registering all 
Democratic men and women or all Republican men and women they should 
give the Democratic or Republican committeemen to understand that they 
could bring in names for their consideration, hut did not give the other party 
to understand the same thing? 

Mr. Hood. I think it would he very unfair for them to do that and an irregu¬ 
larity. If proof could he adduced showing that by such an unfair method as 
that Mr. Kennamer, for example, was defeated, I think that would he a matter 
that a congressional committee ought to take cognizance of. 

Mr. Chindblom. It was charged yesterday that that was done. 

Air. Hood. Well, I think when you gentlemen read the record you will find 
that my friend has exaggerated these charges cons'derably. 

Mr. Street. I charged that outsiders, persons not connected with the hoard 
of registrat on, would go out and make up lists of names of women who were 
not registered, bring them in. turn them over either to the Democrat c county 
chairman or to the hoard of registration, and ask that the names on those 
lists he put on the registration list, and that , : t was done. 

Mr. Chindblom. I understand you went a step further and charged that the 
same opportun ty was not given to Republicans. 

Mr. Street. They denied it to Republicans absolutely. 

Mr. Norton. Do 1 understand that you claim applications were brought in 
that were not signed by the persons? 

Mr. Street. I do not know whether they were or not, hut in some instances 
the evidence shows they were not. 

Mr. Hood. Let me see whether I understand your contention. Do I under¬ 
stand that you assert here that that right was denied to the Republicans? 

Mr. Street. Y^es, sir; I do. 

Mr. Hood. You know Mr. .T. B. Sloan, do you not? 

Mr. Street. I do; I know Mr. Sloan. 

Mr. Hood. And you know Mr. Moody? 

Mr. Street. Y"es, sir. 

Mr. Hood. If the committee will turn to page 193 of the record and read Mr. 
David E. Moody’s testimony on that page it will find that Mr. David E. Moody, 
chairman of the RepubLcan county committee of Blount County, and Mr. J. B. 
Sloan, a cand’date at that time for justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 
went to the hoard of registration and asked the hoard’s construction of that 
section of the act authorizing the board to adopt rules, etc., for the registrat'on 
of women, and the committee w 11 find that the hoard placed the construction 
that I have placed on that section, and that at that t ine it des gnated .T. YV. 
Hughes, James Kay, and C. H. Davidson, all Republicans, to take applications 
in Blount County, and that that was done in Blount County. 

Before I leave that subject I want to say that I am a lawyer and not a 
politician. I am interested in the legal points involved in this case, and I 
believe I have construed those statutes correctly, and I know that is the con¬ 
struction that has been placed on them throughout the State of Alabama. 

Mr. Chindblom. I gather from this evidence on page 193 that certain persons 
were designated as notaries public to take the oaths of applicants. 

Mr. Hood. No; the board did not have the power to appoint those men as 
notaries public. 

Mr. Chindblom. You said a moment ago that a notary could take the oath. 

Mr. Hood. No; I said anybody who- 

Mr. Chindblom (interposing). Who had the right. 

Mr. Hood. Yes; the right to administer oaths. 



28 


KENNAMEll VS. RAINEY. 


Mr. Chindblom. A notary public would have the right to administer oaths. 
On page 193 I find this question : 

“ Who was the Republican justice of tlie peace or notary public that took 
applications for persons to register? 

“A. J. W. Hughes, James Kay, and 0. H. Davidson.” 

It would appear that they had been designated because they had authority to 
administer oaths. 

Mr. Hood. That was the reason why they were designated, because they had 
the authority to administer oaths, but they were Republicans; they were not 
Democrats. 

Mr. Chindblom. I understand that. 

Mr. Hood. The point I was making was that my friend over here was insist¬ 
ing that those registrars accorded that privilege to Democrats and did not 
accord it to Republicans, which I do not think he can support by the real record 
in this case, and I do not think it is the fact, and I want to invite the committee’s 
careful consideration of that. 

Mr. Chindblom. What good would it do to permit a justice of the peace or a 
notary public to administer an oath like this: 

“ I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in the matter of the application of- 

for registration as elector I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help me God?” 

That is for the purpose of answering questions put to them by the registrars. 

Mr. Hood. Surely. 

Mr. Chindblom. If the oath were taken before registration and was taken 
for the purpose of answering questions, why should they make that oath before 
some notary public or justice of the peace who was not a member of the board? 

Mr. Food. Probably that is not the oath they had on these registration blanks. 

Mr. Chindblom. Is there any other oath provided for in the law? 

Mr. Hood. None that I know of. 

The Chairman. Were there certain questions and answers on these applica¬ 
tion blanks? 

Mr. Hood. Well, I never saw one. but I can imagine that they asked the appli¬ 
cants certain questions. 

Mr. Norton. You say you never saw one? 

Mr. Hood. Not in this particular election. I imagine they asked as to age, 
sex, residence, etc., questions that would touch the qualifications of the 
applicants. 

Mr. Chindblom. As to the payment of taxes, and things of that sort, probably. 

Mr. Hood. Whether the applicant could read and write, and if not, whether 
he was the owner of property. 

The Chairman. So far as I recall, the record does not disclose what these 
applications had on them. 

Mr. Hood. It does not, as I recall it. The real fact is that that district down 
there is a white district, largely a mountainous and mineral district, and it 
is almost equally divided between the two parties. The Democratic Party has 
consistently had a majority for many years, running from a few hundreds 
up to 3 000. It is almost wholly white and it is largely rural. The elections 
down there are conducted as they have been for years and years and years in 
rural districts, with more or le-s laxness in the conduct of the registration and 
the holding of the elections. I presume that is true the country over in rural 
districts where people are honest, as a rule, and do not try to swindle their 
neighbors out of their vote as well as out of their property. 

Now. I will pass on. I do not care to worry the committee, but I believe 
that this statute, in so far as the registration that was conducted last year 
is concerned, contemplated that these three registrars should select the points 
at which they would sit to accommodate the public; that they were enjoined 
to go to such points as that and to register every qualified elector who there 
appeared and desired to be registered, whether or not they resided in that 
particular precinct—the precinct in which the board was sitting: That is 
the spirit of the act and that ’S what they undertook to do. 

The Chairman. Does the gentleman know whether or not the record dis¬ 
closes the names of those who applied for registration, who were legally 
entitled to register and vote, and who were not permitted to register? 

Mr. Hood. Well, there are a few, but I do not believe over a dozen, if that 
many. The contestant did bring a number of women who testified that they 
denied, some few of them, the right of registrat'on. In the first place, you 
will notice that they all signed their names by the use of a mark; they could 



KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. 


29 


not even write their own names. \Ye have certain qualifications in Alabama 
at this time. Of course, a person must be 21 years of age; he must he able 
to read and write; for example, he must be able to read a clause of the Federal 
Constitution, or he must own $300 worth of property, e ther personal or real, on 
which he has paid the taxes for the next preceding year, and that means it 
must have been listed in the amount of $300 or more on the tax books; he must 
have paid his poll tax, unless he falls within certain exempted classes. 

We undertook to exempt our soldier boys down there, but, unfortunately, the 
supreme court has recently declared the act unconstitutional on this poll-tax 
feature. There is the poll-tax qualification, there is the l.teracy test in the case 
of illiterates, and there is the property qualification. When a person relies on 
the property qualification it must appear that he has listed his property for 
taxes the next preceding year in the amount of $300 or in excess thereof, and 
that he has paid the taxes on it. If you will examine this record, you will 
find that in not a half dozen instances has it been shown that any person was 
denied the right to register or the right to vote if they possessed any one of 
those qualifications. 

Mr. Box. To what extent is it shown that any illegally registered voters 
voted for or against these candidates? 

Mr. II< )od. 1 do not believe I would he wrong! in saying that the contestant 
has not shown more than an average of a half dozen in each county and that 
the contestee has shown that many or more in each county. This record is 
remarkably free of anything in the nature of fraud; it is remarkably free of 
anything showing that either the Republicans or the Democrats tried to put it 
over by fraudulent methods. There are irregularities in it, and that is the 
chief thing that my friend complains of, irregularities in a rural district where 
the largest city in it has a population of 15,000. The only county in the dis¬ 
trict that has a city of any consequence is the county in wh’ch I reside, which 
has a city of 15,000 or 16.000 people, and there are two other counties, one of 
about 6,000 and the other of about 4,000. 

I regret that I can not take this record and read it to you for the purpose of 
supporting the assertions I make. T.me will not permit of that, and you gen¬ 
tleman will have to read the record for yourselves. 

Now, my friend complains about the unfairness of these registrars in the 
selection of the points where they sat. It begins with the county of Blount. 
In the county of Blount they sat in eight precincts that went for the contestee 
and six that went for the contestant. One of the eight was the couny seat, 
where they were required to sit—no; I believe, excluding the county seat. One 
of the eight went for contestee only by four votes; and the other was the old 
county seat of Blount County—a considerable town. Eliminating those two, 
they visited six precincts that went for contestee and six that went for contest¬ 
ant'. That is Blount County, the first county he takes up. 

Cullman County. Now, he admits in his brief (I did not hear his argument 
yesterday) that the registration was conducted fairly decently in that county. 

Mr. Box. At what page? 

Mr. Street. Page 16. 

Mr. Hood. I was looking at my brief, at page 18. I want to say a word 
about Cullman County. That is a county that has'been very doubtful. John L. 
Burnett represented that district, having been elected for 11 consecutive times. 
He had one contest in a Republican House—Mr. Mann, I believe, being the 
chairman of the committee—in which he retained his seat. 

Cullman County has been a doubtful county. In one election it would go 
Republican; in tiie next election it would go Democratic. Perhaps I would 
accurately state the facts in saying that its leaning was slightly Republcan. In 
this election it went for contestant by nearly 900 majority. It may be that this 
great Republican tidal wave that has swept over the country had something to 
do with it, for certainly the contestee did not get any advantage of the registra¬ 
tion down there of the women in that county. Let us see. Outside of the county 
seat the registrars in that county visited four precincts that went for contestee 
and eight that went for contestant. Were they trying to put something over on 
contestant over in Cullman County? Why, my friend complains and says that 
they went to two beats there; one of them was named Welti and another one—I 
have forgotten the name. 

Mr. Chindblom. Berlin? 

Mr. Hood. Berlin. They went to two beats and registered the voters that were 
not announced by them publicly on their list. Why the evidence shows that 
while they were registering at one of those places they were visited by two 


30 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Republican leaders.over in the county and requested to so to attend a precinct 
where the Republicans were holding a rally and where the contestant was mak¬ 
ing a speech, and that they actually visited that place for the purpose of regis¬ 
tering votes. 

Mr. Street. And when requested to register them, declined. 

Mr. Hood. I do not think that is in the record. 

Mr. Box. 1 did not get that. 

Mr. Street. When they went to this place and the Republicans requested 
them to register the women, they declined to do so; they said they did not have 
the right. 

Mr. Hood. The record will show. Now, take Dekalb County. There is a 
county I think Mr. Burnett carried consistently (I think the record will so 
show) for 11 consecutive times, did he not? 

Mr. Street. I think so. 

Mr. Hood. And I believe Mr. Rainey, the contestee here, carried it over you, 
did he not. when you ran? 

Mr. Street. Yes. 

Mr. Rainey. I never ran against Mr. Street. 

Mr. Street. No ; not I; Mr. Burnett. 

Mr. Hood. Mr. Rainey carried it over you at the last election? 

Mr. Street. Yes. 

Mr. Hood. That county went nearly 900 majority for contestant. That is the 
county where he claims unfairness of the registrars. Let us see. In that county 
the registrars visited live precincts that went for contestee and eight that went 
for contestant. 

Mr. Chindblom. What county was that? 

Mr. Hood. That is Dekalb. 

Mr. Box. What page in your brief? 

Mr. Hood. Page 19. 

Mr. Box. Where is that county discussed in your brief, Mr. Street? 

Mr. Street. On page 17. 

Mr. Hood. Marshall County. That is the county of my friend, Mr. Street, 
and of the contestant. That is the county in which the registrars undertook to 
visit all of the precincts. 

St. Clair County. That is the county that sometimes goes Democratic and 
sometimes Republican, probably with a Republican leaning. The contestant 
carried it by—how much was it, Mr. Street? 

Mr. Street. Five hundred and something; 5S0, I think. 

Mr. Hood. Nearly 600. In that county the registrars visited, outside of the 
county seat, two precincts that went for contestee and seven that went for 
contestant. 

Gentlemen, there was no unfairness in that registration. I do not mean by 
that to say that in some isolated cases some over-zealous Democrat-may not have 
said and done some things he should not have said and done. But that is equally 
true of the Republicans; some over-zealous Republican perhaps said and did 
some things he should not have said and done, as always occurs in an election 
as hotly contested as that was. 

I have lived in that district for a good many years. I have never seen greater 
or as great activity upon the part of both parties as in the registration of the 
women. A regular canvass was made by both parties; not by the Democrats 
alone but by the Republicans, too. Ford'cars were raising dust all over the 
district. [Laughter.] Why, my party sent me out in a dusty section or 
neighborhood. Sandy Mountain it is called down there. It is a beautiful 
country, about a thousand feet above sea level, and broad acres; people living 
everywhere and roads going in every direction, but not covered with concrete. 
It was dusty and sandy. And whilst I was up there, going from one place to 
another, trying to persuade those Sandy Mountain people that the League of 
Nations was the great thing for them to vote for [laughter]- 

Mr. Chindblom. It is on top. [Laughter]. 

Mr. Hood. They found out afterwards—[continuing]. I had great, great 
trouble. In going from one place to another I was absolutely submerged in 
dust with Ford cars [laughter] hauling the women down to tile registrars to 
bo registered. Well, I met one fellow with a load, and I would say to the 
driver, “Well, is he a Republican or Democrat?” “Well, he is a Democrat.” 
I met another one. “Is he a Republican or a Democrat?” “He is a Re¬ 
publican.” And that is the way it was. In my town they took a truck, I 
believe, and equipped it so that quite a number of people could be hauled. That 



KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


31 


was our Republican friends. And they brought them in there by the hundreds 
and registered them. So did the Democrats. And I believe from a reading 
of this testimony here- 

Mr. Rainey. They had plenty of notice, did they not? 

Mr. Hood. Oh, yes; these Ford drivers had notice all right. I was up there 
in Dekalb County severay days before the polls closed. That is the county 
that went so overwhelmingly for the contestant. I presume—well, I won’t say; 
I do not suppose the Democratic committee will send me back up there any 
more. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Chindblom. For inefficiency? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Hood. I could not persuade them as to the League of Nations anyway. 
So, gentlemen of the committee, the women were all registered in that district 
that would be registered, barring a sick woman here or there, or one who was 
wholly disqualified and should not have been registered and barring those who 
would not be registered. 

Now, the seventh congressional district was not unlike the rest of this 
country. We had women in the seventh congressional district who were opposed 
to suffrage, just as you had in your districts and just as everybody else had 
all over the United States. And with all the persuasion of the Democrats and 
with all the persuasion of the Republicans and with the opportunity to ride 
to town in a Ford car, they could not be persuaded to go down there and 
register. There are the facts. And there is a percentage of them that did 
not register, and never will register, because they are opposed to suffrage. 
Of course some of them will become converted by and by, but they were not 
converted then. 

They have testimony in here—I remember one witness, a man by the name 
of Watts, from Cherokee County. He estimated, I believe, that five or six 
hundred Republican women did not register in Cherokee County. Well, that is 
a very unsafe kind of testimony to put your foot on. I would hate to have 
any property rights decided oh any such testimony as that. Anyhow, he said, “ I 
estimate that there are 500 or 600 Republican women in Cherokee County who 
did not register.” “ Well, Mr. Watts, how many of those women did not want 
to register?” “Well, I do not know.” “How many of them were qualified 
electors? ” “ I do not know.” Now, is not that a beautiful thing to dec de a 
contested-election case on—to bring in a politician who says that in his judg¬ 
ment 500 women did not register who were Republicans? I imagine there 
were that many, or somewhere in that neighborhood, of Republican women in 
Cherokee County who did not and would not have registered if you had hauled 
them down to the registration place, because they were opposed to it—had 
been trained and reared that way. Why, they have some who were brought 
in by mistake, I suppose, whose testimony is in this record here, who said they 
did not want to register. 

In one or two other counties they have had estimates made of the Republican 
women who did not register. 

Now, gentlemen, without having heard my friend, I do not know if there is 
any question tl at I have not touched upon that any member of the committee 
would like to ask me anything about. If so, I would be glad to answer if I can. 

Mr. Weaver. I notice there is some reference here to certain maps that were 
not introduced; they are not in the record? 

Mr. Hood. I notice the printer has made a note there that he did not print 
them in the record. I do not know what became of them. They were sent to 
Washington. I presume, and filed with the clerk. 

Mr. Street. I presume the secretary of this committee has them. 

Mr. Hood. This is my first trip to Washington, and I have not seen them. 

Mr. Weaver. Those maps, it seems, indicated where these registrars held 
their first meetings prior to October 19? 

Mr. Hood. Yes. 

Mr. Weaver. Were those meetings near the county seats or farther away 
from the county seats? 

Mr. Hood. They were farthest away from the county seats. 

Mr. Chindblom. What do you know about the registrars meeting at various 
places surreptitiously, as stated in the brief of the contestant? 

Mr. Hood. I do not think there is any soundness in that contention. Here 
is wlmt happened practically: These registrars would hold a meeting, say, at 
Smiths’ store to-day. On their way out to Jones’s mill or gin women would 
congregate, or they would be requested to stop and register women. They did 
that as a matter of accommodation, and in every instance, so far as I now: 



32 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


recall, they registered Republicans and Democrats alike. Sometimes tbe Demo¬ 
crats would get the edge and sometimes the Republicans. That is the way that 
happened. 

My friend here complains about De Kalb County; that while they were sit¬ 
ting at the county seat and registering voters during the six days they were 
required to sit there they would make excursions out at night. If you will 
read the testimony over you will find the Republicans also met them at these 
places. There was no concealment; it was purely a matter of accommodating 
these people out there. And they have not shown and the record does not show 
what percentage were Republicans and what percentage Democrats. 

The Chairman. Just one question: What does the record show with refer¬ 
ence to the voting of these women who were registered? Does the record dis¬ 
close who voted and who did not? 

Mr. Hood. I speak generally. Of course, in some few instances it may. 
You take, for example—I presume you refer to those times where they made 
excursions out, while they were sitting at the county seat? 

The Chairman. Yes; and whether or not those voters were challenged and 
whether they voted or whether they did not. 

Mr. Hood. In some few instances that it probably showed some of them 
voted; but who they voted for, as a general rule, does not appear, nor whether 
they were challenged or not does not appear. The committee would simply 
have to guess what the result of that election would have been if they took my 
friend’s contention. You would have to throw aside, to begin with, the pre¬ 
sumption that goes w.th the certificate that this contestee holds, and that all 
the rest of you hold, so far as that is concerned—the presumption that you got 
your election fairly and justly and that you were elected. You would have to 
cast that aside and you would have to base any findings that you might make 
upon speculation or guess or hearsay and mere estimates. 

Mr. Chindblom. There is a charge that an undue advantage was given to the 
residents of the cities and towns as against those in tbe rural districts, and in 
substantiation of that charge the number of hours spent by the registrars in 
the respective districts w r as shown. 

Mr. Hood. That could not be avoided. Of course, there was an undue ad¬ 
vantage. If I live remotely from the county seat and you live at the county 
seat it would be much more convenient for you to register than it would be for 
me in tbe event I did not avail myself of the opportunity when the registrars 
Were near my home. I do not see how that could be avoided. 

Now, the county seats—there are 9, I believe, or 10 county seats in the seven 
counties; 2 county seats in his [Mr. Street’s] county, and 2 in St. Clair County. 
I believe three or four of those county seats went for contestant and thg re¬ 
mainder for contestee. Of course, the county seats, as a rule, are near the 
center of the county; they are at the points, or supposed to be at the points, 
most convenient to the public at large in the counties; and I do not believe 
that the legislature can be soundly criticized for providing that that board 
should sit for tbe last six days at the county seat, so as to give the people all 
over the county, people who were sick or people who, for one reason or another, 
had not theretofore been registered—to give them an opportunity to come there 
and to be registered. I do'not believe that is a sound pos (ion/ I believe it 
was right, and I have no compunctions whatever in saying tha> (here was no 
injustice worked upon anybody by them holding six days at the county -seat. 
Of course, if they could have held longer in these other precincts it would have 
been better; but if the woman’s suffrage amendment had been adopted just a 
little earlier we would have had more time down there to provide for the 
registration. 

I thank the committee for your patience and kind hearing. I regret that I 
did not have a better opportunity to present the contestee’s side of his case. 

Tbe Chairman. Mr. Street will now be heard for one-half an hour. 

CONCLUDING ARGUMENT OF MR. O. D. STREET ON BEHALF OF 

THE CONTESTANT. 

Mr. Street. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my brother could 
not have lost as much as be may have imagined in not having the benefit of 
hearing my argument yesterday, because T followed pretty closely the line of 
argument made in the brief. I do not think I departed from it in a single 
instance. 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


33 


The first criticism Mr. Hood makes of the complaint in this case is the gen¬ 
erality of our charges. I think all of h's criticism was removed when he read 
grounds 13 and 14; and if the committee will take the pains (I will not take 
the time now) to read ground 15, I think you will find a further ground stated 
there that covers every aspect of this case as presented by the testimony. 

Now, Mr. Hood, I said to the committee yesterday that if all that we could 
have said about this election was that the governor in the exercise of his con¬ 
stitutional powers, the legislature in the exercise of its powers, and these regis¬ 
trars in the exercise of the power given them, had violated no law, while there 
might have been the utmost unfairness and injust'ce in what they did, that we 
could not come here and make legal objecUon to the seating of Mr. Rainey in 
this Congress. But I pointed to the fact that from the 26tli day of August, 
when the promulgation of the proclamation of the adoption of the 19th amend¬ 
ment was made, to the 2d day of November, when this election was held, that 
by one means or another the time was whittled away until there was very 
little time left for the registration of the voters. 

Now, something has been said by my brother, Hood, that he did not see how 
that could have been avoided. The simplest sort of a statute or section for 
this emergency would have avoided all that difficulty if they had done as is 
done, according to my understanding, in most of the States of this Union, 
namely, provided a board of registrars for each precinct or a single registrar 
for each precinct and allowed one day or two days or three days, which would 
have been ample time for the people to have been registered. But they whittle 
away the time down there to just a few days and then appoint three men to 
do the work in the entire counties and require that they must go in a body. I 
simply pointed to the fact that of the whittling away of this time and the ex¬ 
ercise, and the arbitrary exerc'se of the discretion by the registrars in favor of 
the Democratic precincts; and if you read my brief you will see—and I point 
to the pages of the record where it is shown—that beyond all doubt there was 
a great discrimination by the registrars in the exercise of their discretion in 
favor of the Democratic precincts. Those are two circumstances, I admit, that 
cast a light and a shadow upon those charged with the conduct of this regis¬ 
tration upon which we rely as the chief basis of our contest in this case; and 
that is this illegal, as I say, practice pursued by them, of one or more of the 
registrars slipping away from the courthouse when they were required to sit 
in a body, as a judicial body, and had no right to sit anywhere else except at 
the courthouse. They would slip away in the nighttime to the residence of 
some Democratic partisan out in the country, who had been previously noti¬ 
fied, “ Now, you have the women at your house and we will come out there at 
night and we will register them.” They would go off in the daytime in a few 
instances to some Democrat’s store whom they had notified in advance they 
were coining and requested him to get the women together for the purpose of 
registering them, and one of them would go out, leaving his post of duty at the 
county seat, where he was required by law to be sitting—he would go out and 
illegally register these women out in the country ;*would bring their names back 
on a slip of paper and from that slip of paper they would be transcribed on to 
the registration book. 

Now, they did not take; they could not have taken—Mr. Hood is correct in 
one statement he made, and incorrect. I think, in another. He says that no 
written application is required of a registrant. That is true; that is quite 
true. There was no form provided by which a justice of the peace, or some 
so-called deputy registrar, could go out into the country, sit down, and fill out 
a blank, take the registrant’s affidavit to it, carry that affidavit back, and turn 
it over to the board of registrars. There is no such provision as that. The 
only oath that could be taken, and I can not imagine whftt sort of an oath 
they could have brought in from these country districts in view of what this 
record discloses—the only kind of an oath is they make oath they will truthfully 
make answer to such questions as are asked by the registrars. But it is not 
a fact, and nobody practicing law in our State would hold, and it has never 
been the practice in our State, up to the time before this registration, that 
the registrant was not required to appear before the board. That has been 
the uniform and unbroken practice in our State until this special registration 
last fall. 

The Chairman. May I ask you one question? 

Mr. Street. Certainly. 

62061—21-3 



34 


KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. 


The Chairman. Did either side make an effort to get these applications that 
are referred to, that were presented to the board, and to put them in the 
record? 

Mr. Street. If there were any such I have never been able to ascertain the 
fact. If there were any written applications for registration made, in which 
they gave answer to questions as to whether or not they possessed the quali¬ 
fications required by our law, I have never been able to learn the fact. I 
think those questions were propounded to them, probably. So far as I have 
inquired of the registrants that is the fact and the record discloses that was 
the general practice. 

The Chairman. One other question: Was there any reason why these persons 
could not have been sworn to testify in this case and to show exactly what 
they did sign, or what was done? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir; there was the very best of reason, and I am glad you 
asked the question. The reason is this: Some of those registrars we put 
upon the stand ourselves and a few others they put upon the stand themselves. 
We asked them whether there was any means by which they could identify— 
furnish us with the names of those who were registered in what we claim 
to be this illegal manner. They said they could not; that they made these lists 
upon temporary sheets, and, when they had been transcribed upon the regis¬ 
tration book, they destroyed those slips of paper and, after that, dismissed it 
from their mind and they were unable to remember the names of any of those 
persons who were registered by the registrars going out secretly at night into 
the country, or some name being sent in and placed upon the books in that 
manner. So that it was impossible for us to follow that up; it was absolutely 
impossible for us to follow that up with proof, even, that the person thus 
registered voted and much more impossible to show for whom such person 
voted. In other words, that was locked up in the breasts of these Democratic 
partisan registrars and, when put upon the stand, they testified that they could 
not single out and separate those illegally registered from those legally regis¬ 
tered ; consequently we could not pursue it any further. 

Now, the quest'on there was—I believe you asked it, Mr. Dowell—whether 
those new registrants voted. We could not prove, by singling out the person, 
that th's partc-ular identical person did vote—I mean the one who was illegally 
registered—because, as I said, we can not s'ngle them out one from the other. 
But the fact, Mr. Chairman, ? s that practically all of those who were either 
legally or illegally registered did vote in this election, and here is proof positive 
of the fact. If you will look on page 37 of my brief you w 11 find these figures 
in the election held 'n September, 1919, just one year before this election, when 
there was cast in that district only 14,816 votes. 

Mr. Box. Was that a general or special election? 

Mr. Street. That was a special election, but that was about the normal vote 
of the district or really a larger vote than the normal vote of the district prior 
to the woman’s suffrage amendment. Now, in the elect'on last fall, what was 
the vote? It rose from 14,816 votes to 46,679 votes. 

Mr. Hood. In what county is that? 

Mr. Street. That is all the counties of the district. Now, you will find there 
a table of the reg stration by d'striets. 

Mr. Hood. The percentage of increase \s about the same, except the Repub¬ 
lican increase was greater in some counties? 

Mr. Street. It varies in the counties. 

Mr. Weaver. What was the Republican vote in 1919? 

Mr. Street. Seven thousand two hundred and five. 

Mr. Weaver. What was it in th's election? 

Mr. Street. It was 22,906, I believe. 

Mr. Chindblom. Twenty-two thousand nine hundred and seventy. 

Mr. Street. Correct; 22,970 was the Republican vote in th's district. There 
was a corresponding increase of the Democratic vote, due in part to the en- 
franchisement of the women, but due in large measure to the increased zeal and 
interest of both parties in this election. 

Mr. Hood. You do not think there is any more Democratic zeal than Repub¬ 
lican zeal, do you? 

Mr. Street. Well, in some ways there was; there indeed was. [Laughter.] 

Now. here is the registrat'on for the entire district. The new registrat on 
under this special law was 24,340. If everyone of those had voted and you 
add them to the vote in the election in September, 1919, you must still have 
7,523 men who voted in 1920 who did not vote in 1919. So that it is prac- 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


35 


tically certain that nearly everyone of those women who were reg'stered, 
whether legally or illegally, in October, 1920, voted in the election on Novem¬ 
ber 2. 

For whom did they vote? Is it necessary for men with any experience in 
polit cs to ask for whom they were voting when we see a Democratic part san, 
put on these boards because lie was a Democratic partisan, slip off at night 
(when the law required b in to be sitting at the courthouse) to some prec.net 
in the country and there meet a group of women at the residence of some 
Democrat c partisan in that precinct, who had before been notified to “get 
the women to your house and we will be there to-night and register them.” 
What kind of women do you suppose that man gathered at his house? And the 
testimony here is abundant that they had those surreptitious registrations 
made at times and places when they were supposed to he sitting at the court¬ 
house and no notice g veil to the Republicans. 

Mr. Hood can only cite one instance where during the time the registration 
was going on at one of these secret registrations, which probably did not con¬ 
sume more than an hour or two hours at the outs de, two Republican leaders 
happened to appear upon the scene while that was going on. And the evidence 
clearly discloses how they got wind of it: that they got it through a man who 
was at that gathering and did not want his name published. The man who 
gave the infonnat on about it said that it was a family affa'r, a Democratic 
affair, and it would create hard feelings in the family if it was found out he 
had divulged the fact the registrat on was going to take place. 

Mr. Box. Was that the registration officer who made that statement? 

Mr. Street. It was the nephew of the man at whose house the registration 
was going to be held. He disclosed the fact to the Republicans and pledged 
them to secrecy, because he said it was a family affa'r and would create hard 
feelings if it got out he had d vulged the fact the registration was going to 
take place at his uncle’s house that night. However, it did leak out. 

Mr. Ratxey. How many were registered at that place; do you remember? 

Mr. Street. No; the record does not show, but it was something like 3CT 
or 40. 

Now, when these two leaders appeared upon the scene, unexpectedly, they in¬ 
vited these registrars to go up to this place Brother Hood refers to, where 
they were hav ng a Republican rally, and when they got up there they were 
asked whether they could not register some Republican women who lived near by 
and they said no. that the law did not allow it, and they declined to do it. 

Mr. Hoon. They were unfair. 

Mr. Street. That is - what the testimony shows and it is undenied. And I 
want to tell you none of this test mony is denied about these surreptitious, 
secret, meetings, held in these several counties, a list of which you will find on 
pages 43 and 44 of our brief of where these surreptitious, secret, n'ght and day 
meetings were held, at a time when the law required these registrars to be 
s tting at the courthouse. » 

That is what we chiefly complain about in this case. Can you imagine what 
would have been your feeling, as a Republican, say—say, some of you gentle¬ 
men are Republicans—if you had been down there and confronted with what 
we were confronted with? 

Mr. Hood points to the fact that in Blount County some Republicans there 
were advised that they could, in certain kinds of cases, bring in an application 
of a person to be registered by the board; that they were told in cases of 
physical inability to he present—and that physical inability must be shown in 
their application—that they would receive such applications as that. Physical 
inability, inability to get to the place of registration. And the evidence shows 
that those Republicans that he referred to brought in 28 or 31 names of persons 
physically incapable of getting to the place of registration. Contrast that with 
the action of the Democratic partisans of Blount County. One man was abso¬ 
lutely registering people a week after—handing out registration certificates a 
week after—the registration had closed. The registration closed on Tuesday 
and on the following Sunday one of those Democratic partisans m Blount 
County was registering women—just two or three days before the election. 

Mr. Chindblom. May I call your attention to a section of the law for a 
moment? 

Mr. Street. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chindblom. We have had some discussion about the oath administered 
to applicants for registration. Section 22 is another section which relates to 
that? 


36 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


Mr. Street. Yes, sir; that is correct. Section 11 and section 22 obviously 
require a person to make application. 

These two sections to which you refer obviously require a person to appear in 
person before the board of registrars in order to be legally registered. By that I 
mean there is no section under which a notary public or justice of the peace 
or anybody else can go out in the country and take the affidavit of the regis¬ 
trant to the certificate of qualification required by law and bring such a 
paper as that in before the board and have the name of that registrant placed 
on the registration book. There is no such provision as that. The oath re¬ 
quired of the registrant is that he will make true answer to the questions the 
registrars propound to him; not questions that anybody else propounds to him. 
There is no provision in this act for anybody to propound questions to the 
registrant as to his qualifications except the registrars themselves. 

Mr. Chindblom. Would not section 22 bear the construction that an appli¬ 
cant might make an affidavit, as to the speeitic things mentioned in that sec¬ 
tion, before some person other than the registrars? 

Mr. Street. I think that is possibly true. 

Mr. Hood. Surely. 

Mr. Street. That is possibly true. 

Mr. Box. If there was a delegation of any authority to these gentlemen 
mentioned in your argument yesterday, then it is not a delegation to take the 
oath, but a delegation to take applications, because the law gives them 
authority to administer the oath? 

Mr. Hood. That is the idea? 

Mr. Street. If they had been present at the place of registration, if the 
registrant had appeared, a notary public or justice of the peace could have 
taken that oath. But when it comes to propounding questions to them to 
ascertain their qualifications, you will find in this statute there is authority 
on thi‘ part of nobody to propound those questions except possibly certain kinds 
pf questions that are mentioned in section 22, but when it comes to the con¬ 
stitutional requirements, they are not covered by that section 22. 

Mr. Chindblom. Suppose the board of registrars had had blanks containing 
the quest ons mentioned in section 22, do you think they could have dis¬ 
tributed those blanks to parties waiting to register and let them swear to 
those answers before a notary public or justice of the peace, and then let them 
appear before the board and register? 

Mr. Street. I think probably that is true. 

Mr. Chindblom. You do consider that within the bounds of the law? 

Mr. Street. I think that is probably true, that as to those facts mentioned 
in section 22 they might be authorized, or, even without any authority from the 
board of registrars, that a notary public might have taken the affidavit of the 
registrant and have him go with the affidavit before the board and that that 
affidavit would have fulfilled the requirements of section 22. But when it 
comes to ascertaining his qualifications, as to the constitutional requirements 
of a voter, those are ascertained under section 11 by an examination of the 
registrant by the registrars themselves. 

Now, Mr. Hood suggests it does not contemplate an application. Why, the 
act here refers to it in several places, as “ any person making application to 
the board of registrars for registration ” must do so and so. 

Mr. Hood. I say written application, Mr. Street. My contention is that the 
board night, under this section 24, I believe, require it to be in writing. 

Mr. Street. I think that, in a measure, is right, as I said before. 

Mr. Hood. I do not think they required it to be in writing, although it was 
done in Etowah County, perhaps. 

Mr. Street. All right. 

Mr. Hood. But that was left to the board. 

Mr. Street. Now, registration in our State is as essential to the right to vote 
as is the possession of the constitutional requirements to vote, and there could 
not he a greater injustice done to a party in any part of the election law 
than would be done to a party in the administrat'on of the registration law, 
and there is where we contend that it is done in this case. 

My time is short and I will address myself to this theory of the case. It is 
very true that prima facie, when you start out in tin's case, the presumption 
is that Mr. Rainey was legally elected. If there were just an isolated case 
of fraud in some precinct, it would be necessary to show that that fraud was 
sufficient to overturn the result; but you will find by examining the precedents, 
which you will find cited here in our brief, this qualification of that rule, that 


KENNAMER VS. RAINEY. 


37 


when it appears that a conspiracy existed and that in pursuance of an evident 
common purpose, extending throughout the county or throughout the entire 
district, to administer a law in a certain way, illegally or unfairly to one party 
or the other, and that was done, but it is impossible to ascertain the precise 
extent to which it was done, the burden of proof then shifts, say these authori¬ 
ties ; and unless that is met by a denial or by an explanation it becomes con¬ 
clusive, say some of the cases that you will find in Rowell. So our contention 
is that in these precincts which we have listed on pages 43, 44, and 45 there 
was carried on this illegal, surreptitious, registration of voters at a place and 
a time when the law did not permit it, without any notice having been given 
to the other side, and that tinctured the registration in those beats with fraud 
or illegality. But the registrars tell us they can not tell just exactly to what 
extent it is tinctured with fraud or illegality; they can not furnish us with 
the data upon which we could pursue that inquiry further and show for whom 
these illegally registered voters voted. Therefore they do not explain. Evi¬ 
dently there must have been a community of purpose or common understanding, 
because* this thing was carried on in identically the same way all over this 
district contrary to what we conceive to be a fair interpretation of this statute 
and contrary to what had been the universal practice in the past. 

Mr. Weaver. Could there be a legal conspiracy that would be followed by that 
result, even though it was inconvenient in some ways, where the law provided 
foV a certain definite time—in this case a week—in which any voter in a county 
might appear at the courthouse and be registered? 

Mr. Street. If that; had been administered legally- 

Mr. Weaver. I think voters must be given an opportunity to register. Now, 
if a law provide^ a certain definite time—in this case a week—within which any 
voter might appear and register, even though inconvenient, more inconvenient 
for one than for another, would you then have a legal conspiracy to prevent 
that voter from registering? 

Mr. Street. I would be glad to answer it. I thought I had answered that 
question in the statement I made yesterday, but I will repeat it this morn ng, 
that if the legislature and the governor and these registrars had acted within 
the limits of the powers given them by law, in view of the fact that the States 
fix the laws under which an election is held, we could not come here with a 
legal ground of complaint upon which to turn out Mr. Rainey and seat our 
candidate. But when we show they did not do it in the manner required by 
law, and instead of doing that—instead of sitting at the courthouse during 
the definite period you refer to—they would leave a single one or possibly two 
of their members at the courthouse, while the other oue of these three registrars 
was scouting around over the country hunt ng up Democratic women to reg¬ 
ister them at a time and a place where the law did not authorize him to do 
it, we say that was an illegal registration and not merely an irregular registra¬ 
tion. It was an illegal registration, because a judicial body must sit at the 
place where the law requires it to sit, and there is a certain definite provision 
that this board must sit at the courthouse during this time, and they abandoned 
their legal status by go'ng oft' into the country districts and hunting up Demo¬ 
cratic women and registering them. And that is shown to have occurred, here 
in the evidence, in a beat where Mr. Rainey received 1,233 votes majority. 

I have taken the pains to make a tabulation of the several precincts 'n 
which these secret registrations were held and the votes for each one in those 
several precincts. Our contention is this- 

Mr. Chindblom. That is all deducible from the record? 

Mr. Street. It is all deduc'ble from the record. 

Mr. Chindblom. It is really a part of your argument? 

Mr. Street. It is. 

Mr. Chindblom. It is not in the nature of evidence? 

Mr. -Street. Not at all. 

Mr. Norton. It is a compilation only? 

Mr. Street. That is : t. It is for the assistance of the committee. 

Just to state our legal contention about ttrs case—just a word and I am 
through: Our contention is this, that when the registration in a given precinct 
is infected with this illegal registration and the men who did it tell us they 
can not tell us the extent to which it was done, and they were partisans of 
Mr. Rainey in th’s election, that that registration l'st becomes tainted w'tli 
fraud ; and the precedents are full of cases where it has been decided that in 
such instances the returns from that precinct will be rejected in toto as to 



KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. 


. 38 

both sides and each side then thrown back upon proof, by independent evidence, 
of the number of votes cast for each one of them. That is the law as I gather 
it from numerous precedents in cases that have been decided by Congress. 

Therefore, we say those precincts in which this illegal registration was 
shown and the extent of which is not ascertainable, are so infected w th fraud 
and unfairness that the returns ought to be rejected and both parties then 
allowed to prove, if be can, how many legal votes were cast for each one of 
them in those precincts. 

Complaint is made by my Brother Hood that we do not ask to throw out 
the precincts in which they committed those frauds that Kennamer carr ed. 
Congress has passed on cases like that. They say it would be but to aggravate 
the injury if in spite of the illegalities and irregularit es carried on by parti¬ 
san friends of the contestee, the contestant nevertheless succeeded in carrying 
that beat; it would be but to double the injustice to throw out a beat on ac¬ 
count of fraud and irregularities committed by the opposit on. 

Just one word more and I am through: My Brother Hood, on page 29. makes 
a rather ungenerous charge, I think, or rather ins'nuation, against the‘Repub¬ 
lican leaders of the seventh congressional district. Let me read it to you. I 
would scarcely th nk from the pleasant demeanor of the gentleman here be¬ 
fore the committee that he would have been capable of making such an unjust 
and unfounded insinuation against the Republican leaders of the seventy 
district. He says; 

“ The Republican Party of the North will some day become acquainted with 
the ‘pie brigade’ of the South, the methods, character of men, and source of 
livelihood of the officers of that brigade.” 

That you will not listen to the r complaints with such leniency, if it is ma¬ 
terial to this case to know who those disreputable leaders of the Republicans 
of tbe seventh Alabama district are, I challenge h m to name them. If it is 
material to know what their methods are and wherein their methods are any 
more unfair and unjust than the Democratic methods, 1 ask him to name them; 
and then, if their character is not equal to the character of the leaders of the 
Democratic Party of the South, I would like him to name them and where'll 
they are not as reputable as theirs. He and I both belong to the same pro¬ 
fession ; be has been associating with me in the courthouse, and he.casts a re¬ 
flection upon the source of the livelihood of the leaders of the seventh <1 strict. 

Now, he is an elegant gentleman, and at home, why,* we are just the very 
best of friends, and I really was surprised—I was surprised when I saw that 
unjust insinuation—not a charge, but an insinuation—against the leaders of 
the Republican Party of the seventh district. They talk about you northern 
Republicans down there like they talk about us southern Republicans up here 
on the stump. 

Just that much in reply. 

Mr. Hood. .lust a word. My friend had indulged all along through his brief, 
if you have read it. with an abuse of us Democrats. 

Mr. Street. Oh, no. 

Mr. Hood. Yes; you have. [Laughter.] And I will submit it to this com¬ 
mittee, and I just wanted to take one rap at him. I want you to read that 
brief of mine, and if it is not the brief of a gentleman 1 will give up; but I 
just want one knock at you, because you have hit me all the way through 
and my people down there. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Street. I did not refer to my Brother Hood. 

Mr. Chindblom. Well, shall we call it a draw? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Hood. I will agree that it is a draw. 

Mr. Street. I said that when he places a name on the registration list when 
the statute says it is a felony, isn’t it criminal? 

Mr. Hood. You have forgotten your brief; go and read it. 


KENNAMER YS. RAINEY. 


39 


(The tabulation submitted by Mr. Street is as follows:) 


Secret appointment-s. 


County. 

Demo¬ 

crats. 

Repub¬ 

licans. 

Blount: 

Cleveland. 

195 

71 

B rooks ville. 

119 

76 

Liberty. 

118 

130 

Harmony. 

14 

20 

Cherokee: 

Round Mountain. 

117 

59 

Dixons Shop. 

125 

26 

Gavlors ville. 

99 

24 

Waterloo. 

96 

33 

Sand Rock. 

65 

51 

Broomtown. 

65 

64 

Cullman: 

Berlin. 

97 

65 

Welti. 

86 

65 



County. 

Demo¬ 

crats. 

Repub¬ 

licans. 

Dekalb: 



Adamsburg. 

84 

117 

Lydia. 

108 

181 

Collbran... 

54 

9 

Copelands Bridge. 

101 

123 

Collinsville. 

227 

119 

Elrods. 

173 

117 

Marshall: 



Grassy. 

121 

74 

Wakefield. 

51 

21 

South Guntersville. 

456 

142 

Oleander. 

120 

80 

Cross Roads. 

• 75 

13 


It will be seen that these secret registrations were held in 23 prec'ncts to 
our knowledge. How many others we do not know. Of these 23 precincts 5 
went Republican and 18 went Democratic in this election. 

The 5 Republican beats gave Kennamer a gross majority of 128. The 18 Demo¬ 
cratic beats gave Rainey a gross majority of 1,224. 

The 5 Republican beats showed very strong Democratic minorities and they 
had previously been Democratic. 

The Chairman. The time has expired. 

(The hearing was thereupon closed.) 


X 








































LIBRRKX ur 





0 012 322 651 


































